The Colton Index

Top College Basketball Programs Over the Last 10 Years: The 1 Seeds

noreply@blogger.com (Jim Colton) — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 18:07:00 +0000

Just to get the methodology straight...the rankings are based on the average Colton Index ranking (body-of-work performance of wins and losses over an entire season, including postseason play) over the past 10 years. NCAA Tournament performance is weighted double (each game counts as two). Each season counts the same. To the extent that you don't agree with the rankings, it probably means that you weight these things differently. More than likely you weight recent performance and tournament performance more heavily, or internally rank teams on how you expect them to perform over the next 5-10 years. For each team, I show tournament performance by year as well as rankings for the first five years and last years so you can see how teams are trending and how the rankings might look differently if you adjusted the weights to suit your needs.

Recap: The 9 Seeds
36. Iowa
35. Marquette
34. Oregon
33. Alabama

Recap: The 8 Seeds
32. North Carolina St
31. Mississippi St
30. Georgetown
29. Xavier

Recap: The 7 Seeds
28. Notre Dame
27. Villanova
26. Cincinnati
25. Louisville

Recap: The 6 Seeds
24. Wake Forest
23. Indiana
22. Tennessee
21. Memphis

Recap: The 5 Seeds
20. Oklahoma St
19. Pittsburgh
18. UCLA
17. Oklahoma

Recap: The 4 Seeds
16. Syracuse
15. Ohio State
14. Gonzaga
13. Maryland

Recap: The 3 Seeds
12. Stanford
11. Texas
10. Wisconsin
9. Arizona

Recap: The 2 Seeds
8. Illinois
7. Florida
6. Kentucky
5. North Carolina

THE ONE SEEDS
4. Michigan St - ON THE DECLINE
Last 10 Years: 247-94; JCI Rk: 4 (Prev Rk:5); SOS: 3
2007-08: 27-9; JCI Rk: 15; SOS: 24; Tourney: S16
Last 5 Years: 115-52; JCI Rk: 14; SOS: 9
First 5 Years: 132-42; JCI Rk: 2; SOS: 2
NCAA Apperances: 10 (24 wins)
National Championships: 1
Final Fours: 4
Elite 8's: 5
Sweet 16's: 6

Performance by Season

Season	W-L	JCI Rk	SOS	NCAA
2007-08	27-9	15	24	S16
2006-07	23-12	24	20	L2
2005-06	21-12	29	10	L1
2004-05	26-7	5	6	F4
2003-04	18-12	48	34	L1
2002-03	22-13	21	4	E8
2001-02	18-12	38	17	L1
2000-01	28-5	4	17	F4
1999-00	32-7	1	3	NC
1998-99	32-5	3	5	F4

3. Connecticut - ON THE DECLINE
Last 10 Years: 255-82; JCI Rk: 3 (Prev Rk:3); SOS: 20
2007-08: 24-9; JCI Rk: 28; SOS: 52; Tourney: L1
Last 5 Years: 127-41; JCI Rk: 9; SOS: 25
First 5 Years: 128-41; JCI Rk: 3; SOS: 20
NCAA Apperances: 8 (22 wins)
National Championships: 2
Final Fours: 2
Elite 8's: 4
Sweet 16's: 5

Performance by Season

Season	W-L	JCI Rk	SOS	NCAA
2007-08	24-9	28	52	L1
2006-07	17-14	95	76	None
2005-06	30-4	2	8	E8
2004-05	23-8	21	34	L2
2003-04	33-6	2	11	NC
2002-03	23-10	15	15	S16
2001-02	27-7	5	18	E8
2000-01	19-12	55	67	None
1999-00	25-10	20	12	L2
1998-99	34-2	1	15	NC

2. Kansas
Last 10 Years: 267-71; JCI Rk: 2 (Prev Rk:4); SOS: 18
2007-08: 36-3; JCI Rk: 1; SOS: 6; Tourney: NC
Last 5 Years: 139-32; JCI Rk: 3; SOS: 30
First 5 Years: 128-39; JCI Rk: 8; SOS: 15
NCAA Apperances: 10 (25 wins)
National Championships: 1
Final Fours: 3
Elite 8's: 5
Sweet 16's: 6

Performance by Season

Season	W-L	JCI Rk	SOS	NCAA
2007-08	36-3	1	6	NC
2006-07	33-5	5	49	E8
2005-06	24-8	28	74	L1
2004-05	23-7	15	22	L1
2003-04	23-9	20	27	E8
2002-03	28-8	5	1	F4
2001-02	31-4	2	8	F4
2000-01	24-7	12	35	S16
1999-00	23-10	26	20	L2
1998-99	22-10	29	50	L2

1. Duke
Last 10 Years: 298-55; JCI Rk: 1 (Prev Rk:1); SOS: 4
2007-08: 28-6; JCI Rk: 8; SOS: 27; Tourney: L2
Last 5 Years: 140-33; JCI Rk: 2; SOS: 3
First 5 Years: 158-22; JCI Rk: 1; SOS: 7
NCAA Apperances: 10 (26 wins)
National Championships: 1
Final Fours: 3
Elite 8's: 3
Sweet 16's: 8

Performance by Season

Season	W-L	JCI Rk	SOS	NCAA
2007-08	28-6	8	27	L2
2006-07	22-11	31	21	L1
2005-06	32-4	3	14	S16
2004-05	27-6	4	8	S16
2003-04	31-6	4	7	F4
2002-03	26-7	10	26	S16
2001-02	31-4	4	30	S16
2000-01	35-4	1	1	NC
1999-00	29-5	2	22	S16
1998-99	37-2	2	9	F4

Top College Basketball Programs Over the Last 10 Years: The 2 Seeds

noreply@blogger.com (Jim Colton) — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 18:05:00 +0000

Just to get the methodology straight...the rankings are based on the average Colton Index ranking (body-of-work performance of wins and losses over an entire season, including postseason play) over the past 10 years. NCAA Tournament performance is weighted double (each game counts as two). Each season counts the same. To the extent that you don't agree with the rankings, it probably means that you weight these things differently. More than likely you weight recent performance and tournament performance more heavily, or internally rank teams on how you expect them to perform over the next 5-10 years. For each team, I show tournament performance by year as well as rankings for the first five years and last years so you can see how teams are trending and how the rankings might look differently if you adjusted the weights to suit your needs.

Recap: The 9 Seeds
36. Iowa
35. Marquette
34. Oregon
33. Alabama

Recap: The 8 Seeds
32. North Carolina St
31. Mississippi St
30. Georgetown
29. Xavier

Recap: The 7 Seeds
28. Notre Dame
27. Villanova
26. Cincinnati
25. Louisville

Recap: The 6 Seeds
24. Wake Forest
23. Indiana
22. Tennessee
21. Memphis

Recap: The 5 Seeds
20. Oklahoma St
19. Pittsburgh
18. UCLA
17. Oklahoma

Recap: The 4 Seeds
16. Syracuse
15. Ohio State
14. Gonzaga
13. Maryland

Recap: The 3 Seeds
12. Stanford
11. Texas
10. Wisconsin
9. Arizona

THE TWO SEEDS
8. Illinois - ON THE DECLINE
Last 10 Years: 242-99; JCI Rk: 8 (Prev Rk:8); SOS: 8
2007-08: 16-19; JCI Rk: 91; SOS: 34; Tourney: None
Last 5 Years: 128-47; JCI Rk: 10; SOS: 31
First 5 Years: 114-52; JCI Rk: 11; SOS: 5
NCAA Apperances: 8 (15 wins)
Final Fours: 1
Elite 8's: 2
Sweet 16's: 4

Performance by Season

Season	W-L	JCI Rk	SOS	NCAA
2007-08	16-19	91	34	None
2006-07	23-12	50	51	L1
2005-06	26-7	12	37	L2
2004-05	37-2	1	11	F4
2003-04	26-7	17	39	S16
2002-03	25-7	12	41	L2
2001-02	26-9	10	15	S16
2000-01	27-8	5	4	E8
1999-00	22-10	19	8	L2
1998-99	14-18	46	2	None

7. Florida
Last 10 Years: 258-83; JCI Rk: 7 (Prev Rk:9); SOS: 21
2007-08: 24-12; JCI Rk: 52; SOS: 94; Tourney: None
Last 5 Years: 136-42; JCI Rk: 5; SOS: 15
First 5 Years: 122-41; JCI Rk: 10; SOS: 27
NCAA Apperances: 9 (22 wins)
National Championships: 2
Final Fours: 3
Elite 8's: 3
Sweet 16's: 4

Performance by Season

Season	W-L	JCI Rk	SOS	NCAA
2007-08	24-12	52	94	None
2006-07	35-5	2	5	NC
2005-06	33-6	1	5	NC
2004-05	24-8	22	45	L2
2003-04	20-11	27	13	L1
2002-03	25-8	14	35	L2
2001-02	22-9	26	35	L1
2000-01	24-7	14	42	L2
1999-00	29-8	4	10	F4
1998-99	22-9	21	43	S16

6. Kentucky - ON THE DECLINE
Last 10 Years: 244-92; JCI Rk: 6 (Prev Rk:2); SOS: 2
2007-08: 18-13; JCI Rk: 58; SOS: 47; Tourney: L1
Last 5 Years: 117-49; JCI Rk: 12; SOS: 5
First 5 Years: 127-43; JCI Rk: 6; SOS: 1
NCAA Apperances: 10 (17 wins)
Elite 8's: 3
Sweet 16's: 5

Performance by Season

Season	W-L	JCI Rk	SOS	NCAA
2007-08	18-13	58	47	L1
2006-07	22-12	17	1	L2
2005-06	22-13	24	4	L2
2004-05	28-6	7	25	E8
2003-04	27-5	7	24	L2
2002-03	32-4	2	9	E8
2001-02	21-10	17	4	S16
2000-01	24-10	10	6	S16
1999-00	22-10	15	5	L2
1998-99	28-9	7	8	E8

5. North Carolina - ON THE RISE
Last 10 Years: 241-100; JCI Rk: 5 (Prev Rk:7); SOS: 1
2007-08: 36-3; JCI Rk: 3; SOS: 8; Tourney: F4
Last 5 Years: 142-33; JCI Rk: 1; SOS: 1
First 5 Years: 99-67; JCI Rk: 22; SOS: 6
NCAA Apperances: 8 (20 wins)
National Championships: 1
Final Fours: 3
Elite 8's: 4
Sweet 16's: 4

Performance by Season

Season	W-L	JCI Rk	SOS	NCAA
2007-08	36-3	3	8	F4
2006-07	31-7	7	7	E8
2005-06	23-8	19	28	L2
2004-05	33-4	2	1	NC
2003-04	19-11	14	3	L2
2002-03	19-16	46	11	None
2001-02	8-20	153	7	None
2000-01	26-7	6	16	L2
1999-00	22-14	24	4	F4
1998-99	24-10	15	20	L1

Top College Basketball Programs Over the Last 10 Years: The 3 Seeds

noreply@blogger.com (Jim Colton) — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 18:04:00 +0000

Just to get the methodology straight...the rankings are based on the average Colton Index ranking (body-of-work performance of wins and losses over an entire season, including postseason play) over the past 10 years. NCAA Tournament performance is weighted double (each game counts as two). Each season counts the same. To the extent that you don't agree with the rankings, it probably means that you weight these things differently. More than likely you weight recent performance and tournament performance more heavily, or internally rank teams on how you expect them to perform over the next 5-10 years. For each team, I show tournament performance by year as well as rankings for the first five years and last years so you can see how teams are trending and how the rankings might look differently if you adjusted the weights to suit your needs.

Recap: The 9 Seeds
36. Iowa
35. Marquette
34. Oregon
33. Alabama

Recap: The 8 Seeds
32. North Carolina St
31. Mississippi St
30. Georgetown
29. Xavier

Recap: The 7 Seeds
28. Notre Dame
27. Villanova
26. Cincinnati
25. Louisville

Recap: The 6 Seeds
24. Wake Forest
23. Indiana
22. Tennessee
21. Memphis

Recap: The 5 Seeds
20. Oklahoma St
19. Pittsburgh
18. UCLA
17. Oklahoma

Recap: The 4 Seeds
16. Syracuse
15. Ohio State
14. Gonzaga
13. Maryland

THE THREE SEEDS
12. Stanford
Last 10 Years: 233-83; JCI Rk: 12 (Prev Rk:11); SOS: 34
2007-08: 28-8; JCI Rk: 9; SOS: 10; Tourney: S16
Last 5 Years: 110-50; JCI Rk: 25; SOS: 45
First 5 Years: 123-33; JCI Rk: 7; SOS: 29
NCAA Apperances: 9 (10 wins)
Elite 8's: 1
Sweet 16's: 2

Performance by Season

Season	W-L	JCI Rk	SOS	NCAA
2007-08	28-8	9	10	S16
2006-07	18-13	52	15	L1
2005-06	16-14	76	62	None
2004-05	18-13	43	26	L1
2003-04	30-2	9	111	L2
2002-03	24-9	25	68	L2
2001-02	20-10	21	10	L2
2000-01	29-3	2	19	E8
1999-00	26-4	6	58	L2
1998-99	24-7	10	17	L2

11. Texas
Last 10 Years: 245-93; JCI Rk: 11 (Prev Rk:15); SOS: 19
2007-08: 30-7; JCI Rk: 5; SOS: 2; Tourney: E8
Last 5 Years: 129-43; JCI Rk: 8; SOS: 19
First 5 Years: 116-50; JCI Rk: 16; SOS: 24
NCAA Apperances: 10 (16 wins)
Final Fours: 1
Elite 8's: 3
Sweet 16's: 5

Performance by Season

Season	W-L	JCI Rk	SOS	NCAA
2007-08	30-7	5	2	E8
2006-07	25-10	25	48	L2
2005-06	30-7	9	33	E8
2004-05	19-11	44	47	L1
2003-04	25-8	11	20	S16
2002-03	26-7	6	5	F4
2001-02	22-12	20	6	S16
2000-01	25-9	17	51	L1
1999-00	24-9	18	14	L2
1998-99	19-13	67	74	L1

10. Wisconsin
Last 10 Years: 234-95; JCI Rk: 10 (Prev Rk:13); SOS: 9
2007-08: 31-5; JCI Rk: 7; SOS: 54; Tourney: S16
Last 5 Years: 130-39; JCI Rk: 6; SOS: 34
First 5 Years: 104-56; JCI Rk: 17; SOS: 4
NCAA Apperances: 10 (14 wins)
Final Fours: 1
Elite 8's: 2
Sweet 16's: 4

Performance by Season

Season	W-L	JCI Rk	SOS	NCAA
2007-08	31-5	7	54	S16
2006-07	30-6	9	35	L2
2005-06	19-12	49	42	L1
2004-05	25-9	10	13	E8
2003-04	25-7	18	43	L2
2002-03	24-8	17	45	S16
2001-02	18-13	41	22	L2
2000-01	18-11	24	9	L1
1999-00	22-14	14	1	F4
1998-99	22-10	12	6	L1

9. Arizona - ON THE DECLINE
Last 10 Years: 236-92; JCI Rk: 9 (Prev Rk:6); SOS: 7
2007-08: 18-15; JCI Rk: 41; SOS: 1; Tourney: L1
Last 5 Years: 108-56; JCI Rk: 23; SOS: 10
First 5 Years: 128-36; JCI Rk: 5; SOS: 13
NCAA Apperances: 10 (15 wins)
Final Fours: 1
Elite 8's: 3
Sweet 16's: 4

Performance by Season

Season	W-L	JCI Rk	SOS	NCAA
2007-08	18-15	41	1	L1
2006-07	20-11	21	2	L1
2005-06	20-13	41	18	L2
2004-05	30-7	9	17	E8
2003-04	20-10	66	90	L1
2002-03	28-4	3	42	E8
2001-02	24-10	7	2	S16
2000-01	27-8	3	2	F4
1999-00	27-7	10	27	L2
1998-99	22-7	20	55	L1

Top College Basketball Programs Over the Last 10 Years: The 4 Seeds

noreply@blogger.com (Jim Colton) — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 18:01:00 +0000

Just to get the methodology straight...the rankings are based on the average Colton Index ranking (body-of-work performance of wins and losses over an entire season, including postseason play) over the past 10 years. NCAA Tournament performance is weighted double (each game counts as two). Each season counts the same. To the extent that you don't agree with the rankings, it probably means that you weight these things differently. More than likely you weight recent performance and tournament performance more heavily, or internally rank teams on how you expect them to perform over the next 5-10 years. For each team, I show tournament performance by year as well as rankings for the first five years and last years so you can see how teams are trending and how the rankings might look differently if you adjusted the weights to suit your needs.

Recap: The 9 Seeds
36. Iowa
35. Marquette
34. Oregon
33. Alabama

Recap: The 8 Seeds
32. North Carolina St
31. Mississippi St
30. Georgetown
29. Xavier

Recap: The 7 Seeds
28. Notre Dame
27. Villanova
26. Cincinnati
25. Louisville

Recap: The 6 Seeds
24. Wake Forest
23. Indiana
22. Tennessee
21. Memphis

Recap: The 5 Seeds
20. Oklahoma St
19. Pittsburgh
18. UCLA
17. Oklahoma

THE 4 SEEDS
16. Syracuse - ON THE DECLINE
Last 10 Years: 242-97; JCI Rk: 16 (Prev Rk:12); SOS: 52
2007-08: 21-14; JCI Rk: 51; SOS: 55; Tourney: None
Last 5 Years: 118-52; JCI Rk: 22; SOS: 48
First 5 Years: 124-45; JCI Rk: 12; SOS: 45
NCAA Apperances: 7 (11 wins)
National Championships: 1
Final Fours: 1
Elite 8's: 1
Sweet 16's: 3

Performance by Season

Season	W-L	JCI Rk	SOS	NCAA
2007-08	21-14	51	55	None
2006-07	24-11	59	96	None
2005-06	23-12	25	11	L1
2004-05	27-7	18	62	L1
2003-04	23-8	15	17	S16
2002-03	30-5	1	2	NC
2001-02	23-13	55	88	None
2000-01	25-9	21	58	L2
1999-00	26-6	7	40	S16
1998-99	20-12	41	45	L1

15. Ohio State
Last 10 Years: 229-101; JCI Rk: 15 (Prev Rk:21); SOS: 24
2007-08: 24-13; JCI Rk: 35; SOS: 39; Tourney: None
Last 5 Years: 119-51; JCI Rk: 17; SOS: 41
First 5 Years: 110-50; JCI Rk: 15; SOS: 17
NCAA Apperances: 6 (12 wins)
Final Fours: 2
Elite 8's: 2
Sweet 16's: 2

Performance by Season

Season	W-L	JCI Rk	SOS	NCAA
2007-08	24-13	35	39	None
2006-07	35-4	1	9	F4
2005-06	26-6	13	56	L2
2004-05	20-12	38	40	None
2003-04	14-16	102	68	None
2002-03	17-15	54	22	None
2001-02	24-8	23	55	L2
2000-01	20-11	34	28	L1
1999-00	23-7	12	21	L2
1998-99	26-9	5	3	F4

14. Gonzaga
Last 10 Years: 261-67; JCI Rk: 14 (Prev Rk:14); SOS: 83
2007-08: 25-8; JCI Rk: 29; SOS: 89; Tourney: L1
Last 5 Years: 131-31; JCI Rk: 13; SOS: 84
First 5 Years: 130-36; JCI Rk: 18; SOS: 83
NCAA Apperances: 10 (12 wins)
Elite 8's: 1
Sweet 16's: 4

Performance by Season

Season	W-L	JCI Rk	SOS	NCAA
2007-08	25-8	29	89	L1
2006-07	23-11	61	75	L1
2005-06	29-4	8	87	S16
2004-05	26-5	14	80	L2
2003-04	28-3	12	105	L2
2002-03	24-9	38	86	L2
2001-02	28-4	14	111	L1
2000-01	25-7	32	99	S16
1999-00	26-9	30	72	S16
1998-99	27-7	13	70	E8

13. Maryland - ON THE DECLINE
Last 10 Years: 231-103; JCI Rk: 13 (Prev Rk:10); SOS: 10
2007-08: 19-15; JCI Rk: 73; SOS: 65; Tourney: None
Last 5 Years: 101-62; JCI Rk: 30; SOS: 14
First 5 Years: 130-41; JCI Rk: 4; SOS: 10
NCAA Apperances: 7 (17 wins)
National Championships: 1
Final Fours: 2
Elite 8's: 2
Sweet 16's: 4

Performance by Season

Season	W-L	JCI Rk	SOS	NCAA
2007-08	19-15	73	65	None
2006-07	25-9	19	34	L2
2005-06	18-13	52	32	None
2004-05	19-13	42	29	None
2003-04	20-12	16	2	L2
2002-03	21-10	23	29	S16
2001-02	32-4	1	5	NC
2000-01	25-11	7	7	F4
1999-00	25-10	25	25	L2
1998-99	27-6	6	21	S16

Top College Basketball Programs Over the Last 10 Years: The 5 Seeds

noreply@blogger.com (Jim Colton) — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 17:59:00 +0000

Just to get the methodology straight...the rankings are based on the average Colton Index ranking (body-of-work performance of wins and losses over an entire season, including postseason play) over the past 10 years. NCAA Tournament performance is weighted double (each game counts as two). Each season counts the same. To the extent that you don't agree with the rankings, it probably means that you weight these things differently. More than likely you weight recent performance and tournament performance more heavily, or internally rank teams on how you expect them to perform over the next 5-10 years. For each team, I show tournament performance by year as well as rankings for the first five years and last years so you can see how teams are trending and how the rankings might look differently if you adjusted the weights to suit your needs.

Recap: The 9 Seeds
36. Iowa
35. Marquette
34. Oregon
33. Alabama

Recap: The 8 Seeds
32. North Carolina St
31. Mississippi St
30. Georgetown
29. Xavier

Recap: The 7 Seeds
28. Notre Dame
27. Villanova
26. Cincinnati
25. Louisville

Recap: The 6 Seeds
24. Wake Forest
23. Indiana
22. Tennessee
21. Memphis

THE FIVE SEEDS
20. Oklahoma St
Last 10 Years: 220-103; JCI Rk: 20 (Prev Rk:16); SOS: 42
2007-08: 16-16; JCI Rk: 60; SOS: 9; Tourney: None
Last 5 Years: 109-56; JCI Rk: 21; SOS: 28
First 5 Years: 111-47; JCI Rk: 19; SOS: 56
NCAA Apperances: 7 (11 wins)
Final Fours: 1
Elite 8's: 2
Sweet 16's: 3

Performance by Season

Season	W-L	JCI Rk	SOS	NCAA
2007-08	16-16	60	9	None
2006-07	21-13	63	62	None
2005-06	17-16	84	63	None
2004-05	25-7	11	19	S16
2003-04	30-4	3	18	F4
2002-03	21-10	20	13	L2
2001-02	23-9	30	46	L1
2000-01	19-10	57	80	L1
1999-00	26-7	9	33	E8
1998-99	22-11	43	75	L2

19. Pittsburgh - ON THE RISE
Last 10 Years: 231-96; JCI Rk: 19 (Prev Rk:23); SOS: 37
2007-08: 26-10; JCI Rk: 17; SOS: 18; Tourney: L2
Last 5 Years: 130-40; JCI Rk: 7; SOS: 20
First 5 Years: 101-56; JCI Rk: 36; SOS: 53
NCAA Apperances: 7 (10 wins)
Sweet 16's: 4

Performance by Season

Season	W-L	JCI Rk	SOS	NCAA
2007-08	26-10	17	18	L2
2006-07	29-8	10	32	S16
2005-06	25-8	16	29	L2
2004-05	20-9	31	48	L1
2003-04	30-5	5	21	S16
2002-03	28-5	4	30	S16
2001-02	28-6	9	60	S16
2000-01	18-14	64	53	None
1999-00	13-15	112	76	None
1998-99	14-16	89	28	None

18. UCLA - ON THE RISE
Last 10 Years: 221-106; JCI Rk: 18 (Prev Rk:18); SOS: 14
2007-08: 34-4; JCI Rk: 4; SOS: 4; Tourney: F4
Last 5 Years: 124-45; JCI Rk: 11; SOS: 18
First 5 Years: 97-61; JCI Rk: 23; SOS: 14
NCAA Apperances: 8 (19 wins)
Final Fours: 3
Elite 8's: 3
Sweet 16's: 6

Performance by Season

Season	W-L	JCI Rk	SOS	NCAA
2007-08	34-4	4	4	F4
2006-07	29-6	3	3	F4
2005-06	32-7	6	27	F4
2004-05	18-11	36	27	L1
2003-04	11-17	135	93	None
2002-03	10-19	135	24	None
2001-02	21-12	22	3	S16
2000-01	23-9	9	10	S16
1999-00	21-12	31	13	S16
1998-99	22-9	23	39	L1

17. Oklahoma
Last 10 Years: 235-92; JCI Rk: 17 (Prev Rk:17); SOS: 46
2007-08: 23-12; JCI Rk: 24; SOS: 11; Tourney: L2
Last 5 Years: 102-54; JCI Rk: 36; SOS: 44
First 5 Years: 133-38; JCI Rk: 9; SOS: 44
NCAA Apperances: 8 (12 wins)
Final Fours: 1
Elite 8's: 2
Sweet 16's: 3

Performance by Season

Season	W-L	JCI Rk	SOS	NCAA
2007-08	23-12	24	11	L2
2006-07	15-15	86	47	None
2005-06	20-9	50	77	L1
2004-05	25-8	20	42	L2
2003-04	19-10	39	45	None
2002-03	27-7	8	10	E8
2001-02	31-5	3	9	F4
2000-01	27-8	19	74	L1
1999-00	27-7	21	63	L2
1998-99	21-11	36	63	S16

Top College Basketball Programs Over the Last 10 Years: The 6 Seeds

noreply@blogger.com (Jim Colton) — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 17:57:00 +0000

Just to get the methodology straight...the rankings are based on the average Colton Index ranking (body-of-work performance of wins and losses over an entire season, including postseason play) over the past 10 years. NCAA Tournament performance is weighted double (each game counts as two). Each season counts the same. To the extent that you don't agree with the rankings, it probably means that you weight these things differently. More than likely you weight recent performance and tournament performance more heavily, or internally rank teams on how you expect them to perform over the next 5-10 years. For each team, I show tournament performance by year as well as rankings for the first five years and last years so you can see how teams are trending and how the rankings might look differently if you adjusted the weights to suit your needs.

Recap: The 9 Seeds
36. Iowa
35. Marquette
34. Oregon
33. Alabama

Recap: The 8 Seeds
32. North Carolina St
31. Mississippi St
30. Georgetown
29. Xavier

Recap: The 7 Seeds
28. Notre Dame
27. Villanova
26. Cincinnati
25. Louisville

THE 6 SEEDS
24. Wake Forest
Last 10 Years: 201-120; JCI Rk: 24 (Prev Rk:20); SOS: 12
2007-08: 17-13; JCI Rk: 66; SOS: 69; Tourney: None
Last 5 Years: 97-62; JCI Rk: 26; SOS: 7
First 5 Years: 104-58; JCI Rk: 20; SOS: 21
NCAA Apperances: 5 (5 wins)
Sweet 16's: 1

Performance by Season

Season	W-L	JCI Rk	SOS	NCAA
2007-08	17-13	66	69	None
2006-07	15-16	75	23	None
2005-06	17-17	68	30	None
2004-05	27-6	6	7	L2
2003-04	21-10	10	5	S16
2002-03	25-6	11	46	L2
2001-02	21-13	31	12	L2
2000-01	19-11	23	11	L1
1999-00	22-14	34	26	None
1998-99	17-14	47	30	None

23. Indiana
Last 10 Years: 203-118; JCI Rk: 23 (Prev Rk:22); SOS: 6
2007-08: 25-8; JCI Rk: 27; SOS: 68; Tourney: L1
Last 5 Years: 94-60; JCI Rk: 38; SOS: 22
First 5 Years: 109-58; JCI Rk: 14; SOS: 3
NCAA Apperances: 8 (9 wins)
Final Fours: 1
Elite 8's: 1
Sweet 16's: 1

Performance by Season

Season	W-L	JCI Rk	SOS	NCAA
2007-08	25-8	27	68	L1
2006-07	21-11	26	22	L2
2005-06	19-12	33	12	L2
2004-05	15-14	61	23	None
2003-04	14-15	75	36	None
2002-03	21-13	27	12	L2
2001-02	24-12	8	1	F4
2000-01	21-13	29	12	L1
1999-00	20-9	22	7	L1
1998-99	23-11	16	12	L2

22. Tennessee - ON THE RISE
Last 10 Years: 204-110; JCI Rk: 22 (Prev Rk:24); SOS: 16
2007-08: 30-5; JCI Rk: 6; SOS: 15; Tourney: S16
Last 5 Years: 105-54; JCI Rk: 18; SOS: 6
First 5 Years: 99-56; JCI Rk: 24; SOS: 33
NCAA Apperances: 6 (8 wins)
Sweet 16's: 3

Performance by Season

Season	W-L	JCI Rk	SOS	NCAA
2007-08	30-5	6	15	S16
2006-07	24-11	14	4	S16
2005-06	22-8	14	13	L2
2004-05	14-17	96	32	None
2003-04	15-13	55	19	None
2002-03	17-12	47	43	None
2001-02	14-16	67	13	None
2000-01	22-12	30	22	L1
1999-00	25-7	16	46	S16
1998-99	21-9	24	44	L2

21. Memphis - ON THE RISE
Last 10 Years: 244-96; JCI Rk: 21 (Prev Rk:28); SOS: 77
2007-08: 38-2; JCI Rk: 2; SOS: 48; Tourney: F4
Last 5 Years: 148-34; JCI Rk: 4; SOS: 74
First 5 Years: 96-62; JCI Rk: 62; SOS: 80
NCAA Apperances: 5 (12 wins)
Final Fours: 1
Elite 8's: 3
Sweet 16's: 3

Performance by Season

Season	W-L	JCI Rk	SOS	NCAA
2007-08	38-2	2	48	F4
2006-07	33-4	4	85	E8
2005-06	33-4	5	68	E8
2004-05	22-16	79	83	None
2003-04	22-8	25	42	L2
2002-03	23-7	28	82	L1
2001-02	26-9	40	114	None
2000-01	20-15	68	70	None
1999-00	14-16	109	97	None
1998-99	13-15	116	76	None

Top College Basketball Programs Over the Last 10 Years: The 7 Seeds

noreply@blogger.com (Jim Colton) — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 17:55:00 +0000

Just to get the methodology straight...the rankings are based on the average Colton Index ranking (body-of-work performance of wins and losses over an entire season, including postseason play) over the past 10 years. NCAA Tournament performance is weighted double (each game counts as two). Each season counts the same. To the extent that you don't agree with the rankings, it probably means that you weight these things differently. More than likely you weight recent performance and tournament performance more heavily, or internally rank teams on how you expect them to perform over the next 5-10 years. For each team, I show tournament performance by year as well as rankings for the first five years and last years so you can see how teams are trending and how the rankings might look differently if you adjusted the weights to suit your needs.

Recap: The 9 Seeds
36. Iowa
35. Marquette
34. Oregon
33. Alabama

Recap: The 8 Seeds
32. North Carolina St
31. Mississippi St
30. Georgetown
29. Xavier

THE 7 SEEDS
28. Notre Dame
Last 10 Years: 202-116; JCI Rk: 28 (Prev Rk:32); SOS: 35
2007-08: 25-8; JCI Rk: 20; SOS: 53; Tourney: L2
Last 5 Years: 99-54; JCI Rk: 35; SOS: 40
First 5 Years: 103-62; JCI Rk: 31; SOS: 34
NCAA Apperances: 5 (5 wins)
Sweet 16's: 1

Performance by Season

Season	W-L	JCI Rk	SOS	NCAA
2007-08	25-8	20	53	L2
2006-07	24-8	28	73	L1
2005-06	16-14	57	22	None
2004-05	17-12	53	54	None
2003-04	17-12	40	16	None
2002-03	24-10	9	3	S16
2001-02	21-11	37	31	L2
2000-01	22-11	37	50	L2
1999-00	22-15	40	32	None
1998-99	14-15	102	59	None

27. Villanova
Last 10 Years: 204-119; JCI Rk: 27 (Prev Rk:25); SOS: 26
2007-08: 22-13; JCI Rk: 34; SOS: 25; Tourney: S16
Last 5 Years: 110-52; JCI Rk: 16; SOS: 8
First 5 Years: 94-67; JCI Rk: 48; SOS: 50
NCAA Apperances: 5 (7 wins)
Elite 8's: 1
Sweet 16's: 3

Performance by Season

Season	W-L	JCI Rk	SOS	NCAA
2007-08	22-13	34	25	S16
2006-07	21-11	38	31	L1
2005-06	28-5	4	3	E8
2004-05	24-8	13	24	S16
2003-04	15-15	61	15	None
2002-03	15-16	74	40	None
2001-02	19-13	51	50	None
2000-01	20-14	43	27	None
1999-00	20-13	50	68	None
1998-99	20-11	40	56	L1

26. Cincinnati - ON THE DECLINE
Last 10 Years: 222-102; JCI Rk: 26 (Prev Rk:19); SOS: 66
2007-08: 13-19; JCI Rk: 104; SOS: 14; Tourney: None
Last 5 Years: 94-66; JCI Rk: 51; SOS: 46
First 5 Years: 128-36; JCI Rk: 13; SOS: 67
NCAA Apperances: 7 (7 wins)
Sweet 16's: 1

Performance by Season

Season	W-L	JCI Rk	SOS	NCAA
2007-08	13-19	104	14	None
2006-07	11-19	156	63	None
2005-06	20-13	36	17	None
2004-05	25-8	25	65	L2
2003-04	25-7	24	59	L2
2002-03	17-12	61	61	L1
2001-02	31-4	6	74	L2
2000-01	25-10	28	65	S16
1999-00	29-4	5	55	L2
1998-99	26-6	14	68	L2

25. Louisville - ON THE RISE
Last 10 Years: 215-109; JCI Rk: 25 (Prev Rk:29); SOS: 53
2007-08: 27-9; JCI Rk: 12; SOS: 5; Tourney: E8
Last 5 Years: 122-47; JCI Rk: 15; SOS: 35
First 5 Years: 93-62; JCI Rk: 50; SOS: 63
NCAA Apperances: 7 (9 wins)
Final Fours: 1
Elite 8's: 2
Sweet 16's: 2

Performance by Season

Season	W-L	JCI Rk	SOS	NCAA
2007-08	27-9	12	5	E8
2006-07	23-10	35	53	L2
2005-06	21-13	48	44	None
2004-05	31-5	3	28	F4
2003-04	20-10	38	44	L1
2002-03	25-7	18	55	L2
2001-02	19-13	69	68	None
2000-01	12-19	115	62	None
1999-00	18-12	49	52	L1
1998-99	19-11	34	41	L1

Top College Basketball Programs Over the Last 10 Years: The 8 Seeds

noreply@blogger.com (Jim Colton) — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 17:51:00 +0000

Season	W-L	JCI Rk	SOS	NCAA
2007-08	15-16	81	31	None
2006-07	20-16	64	30	None
2005-06	22-10	27	34	L2
2004-05	21-14	28	4	S16
2003-04	21-10	13	6	L2
2002-03	18-13	49	34	L1
2001-02	23-11	25	19	L2
2000-01	13-16	83	15	None
1999-00	20-14	53	53	None
1998-99	19-14	50	38	None

31. Mississippi St
Last 10 Years: 207-115; JCI Rk: 31 (Prev Rk:34); SOS: 58
2007-08: 23-11; JCI Rk: 42; SOS: 64; Tourney: L2
Last 5 Years: 108-55; JCI Rk: 29; SOS: 51
First 5 Years: 99-60; JCI Rk: 45; SOS: 52
NCAA Apperances: 5 (4 wins)

Performance by Season

Season	W-L	JCI Rk	SOS	NCAA
2007-08	23-11	42	64	L2
2006-07	21-14	46	27	None
2005-06	15-15	78	46	None
2004-05	23-11	32	53	L2
2003-04	26-4	8	48	L2
2002-03	21-10	26	27	L1
2001-02	27-8	16	42	L2
2000-01	18-13	49	43	None
1999-00	14-16	120	67	None
1998-99	19-13	58	60	None

30. Georgetown - ON THE RISE
Last 10 Years: 207-116; JCI Rk: 30 (Prev Rk:36); SOS: 39
2007-08: 28-6; JCI Rk: 10; SOS: 40; Tourney: L2
Last 5 Years: 113-51; JCI Rk: 19; SOS: 23
First 5 Years: 94-65; JCI Rk: 49; SOS: 51
NCAA Apperances: 4 (9 wins)
Final Fours: 1
Elite 8's: 1
Sweet 16's: 3

Performance by Season

Season	W-L	JCI Rk	SOS	NCAA
2007-08	28-6	10	40	L2
2006-07	30-7	6	14	F4
2005-06	23-10	15	6	S16
2004-05	19-13	49	49	None
2003-04	13-15	109	55	None
2002-03	19-15	53	25	None
2001-02	18-11	49	58	None
2000-01	25-8	20	75	S16
1999-00	18-15	63	47	None
1998-99	14-16	88	32	None

29. Xavier
Last 10 Years: 238-93; JCI Rk: 29 (Prev Rk:30); SOS: 79
2007-08: 30-7; JCI Rk: 13; SOS: 37; Tourney: E8
Last 5 Years: 119-50; JCI Rk: 37; SOS: 77
First 5 Years: 119-43; JCI Rk: 29; SOS: 84
NCAA Apperances: 7 (9 wins)
Elite 8's: 2
Sweet 16's: 2

Performance by Season

Season	W-L	JCI Rk	SOS	NCAA
2007-08	30-7	13	37	E8
2006-07	25-9	51	99	L2
2005-06	21-11	69	93	L1
2004-05	17-12	113	147	None
2003-04	26-11	22	29	E8
2002-03	26-6	22	89	L2
2001-02	26-6	12	61	L2
2000-01	21-8	41	85	L1
1999-00	21-12	77	113	None
1998-99	25-11	44	104	None

Top College Basketball Programs Over the Last 10 Years: The 9 Seeds

noreply@blogger.com (Jim Colton) — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 17:32:00 +0000

It's that time of the year again. Now that the basketball season is over, let's update the final Colton Index rankings for the year and add 2007-08 to the record books. That means we can update my last 10 year rankings by replacing 1997-98 with 1998-99. Previous versions of my 10-year rankings have received more attention than one of my normal blog posts (which means about 10 hits instead of 1 or 2, if my math is correct that's up to a 500% increase in readership. How many blogs can say that?)

Just to get the methodology straight...the rankings are based on the average Colton Index ranking (body-of-work performance of wins and losses over an entire season, including postseason play) over the past 10 years. NCAA Tournament performance is weighted double (each game counts as two). Each season counts the same. To the extent that you don't agree with the rankings, it probably means that you weight these things differently. More than likely you weight recent performance and tournament performance more heavily, or internally rank teams on how you expect them to perform over the next 5-10 years. For each team, I show tournament performance by year as well as rankings for the first five years and last years so you can see how teams are trending and how the rankings might look differently if you adjusted the weights to suit your needs.

We'll group the teams by seed and list them one at a time, building up a to an anti-climatic announcement of the 1 seeds in the next week or so. Stay tuned and enjoy!

36. Iowa - ON THE DECLINE (but they did win the Big Ten Tournament in 2006 and 2001)
Last 10 Years: 185-135; JCI Rk: 36 (Prev Rk:31); SOS: 25
2007-08: 13-19; JCI Rk: 160; SOS: 74; Tourney: None
Last 5 Years: 92-66; JCI Rk: 55; SOS: 57
First 5 Years: 93-69; JCI Rk: 33; SOS: 9
NCAA Apperances: 4 (3 wins)
Sweet 16's: 1

Performance by Season

Season	W-L	JCI Rk	SOS	NCAA
2007-08	13-19	160	74	None
2006-07	17-14	78	52	None
2005-06	25-9	23	39	L1
2004-05	21-12	30	18	L1
2003-04	16-12	67	61	None
2002-03	17-14	70	71	None
2001-02	19-16	65	36	None
2000-01	23-13	27	21	L2
1999-00	14-16	36	2	None
1998-99	20-10	11	4	S16

35. Marquette
Last 10 Years: 199-111; JCI Rk: 35 (Prev Rk:42); SOS: 69
2007-08: 24-10; JCI Rk: 19; SOS: 16; Tourney: L2
Last 5 Years: 100-54; JCI Rk: 42; SOS: 67
First 5 Years: 99-57; JCI Rk: 46; SOS: 70
NCAA Apperances: 5 (5 wins)
Final Fours: 1
Elite 8's: 1
Sweet 16's: 1

Performance by Season

Season	W-L	JCI Rk	SOS	NCAA
2007-08	24-10	19	16	L2
2006-07	23-10	39	55	L1
2005-06	19-11	40	26	L1
2004-05	18-12	85	100	None
2003-04	16-11	79	79	None
2002-03	27-6	7	18	F4
2001-02	26-7	18	69	L1
2000-01	17-15	87	79	None
1999-00	15-14	89	73	None
1998-99	14-15	119	98	None

34. Oregon
Last 10 Years: 194-120; JCI Rk: 34 (Prev Rk:38); SOS: 56
2007-08: 18-14; JCI Rk: 49; SOS: 12; Tourney: L1
Last 5 Years: 90-65; JCI Rk: 49; SOS: 42
First 5 Years: 104-55; JCI Rk: 35; SOS: 57
NCAA Apperances: 5 (6 wins)
Elite 8's: 2
Sweet 16's: 2

Performance by Season

Season	W-L	JCI Rk	SOS	NCAA
2007-08	18-14	49	12	L1
2006-07	29-8	8	17	E8
2005-06	14-18	113	58	None
2004-05	14-13	68	35	None
2003-04	15-12	93	89	None
2002-03	23-10	42	75	L1
2001-02	25-9	13	25	E8
2000-01	17-15	78	49	None
1999-00	21-8	32	49	L1
1998-99	18-13	49	53	None

33. Alabama
Last 10 Years: 197-124; JCI Rk: 33 (Prev Rk:27); SOS: 31
2007-08: 17-16; JCI Rk: 97; SOS: 78; Tourney: None
Last 5 Years: 98-62; JCI Rk: 34; SOS: 17
First 5 Years: 99-62; JCI Rk: 42; SOS: 47
NCAA Apperances: 5 (5 wins)
Elite 8's: 1
Sweet 16's: 1

Performance by Season

Season	W-L	JCI Rk	SOS	NCAA
2007-08	17-16	97	78	None
2006-07	20-12	43	36	None
2005-06	18-13	39	9	L2
2004-05	23-8	24	41	L1
2003-04	20-13	21	8	E8
2002-03	17-12	48	31	L1
2001-02	27-8	15	41	L2
2000-01	25-11	36	66	None
1999-00	13-16	101	66	None
1998-99	17-15	53	26	None

RPI Plus: A simple fix to the RPI

noreply@blogger.com (Jim Colton) — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 15:36:00 +0000

Buried deep in Part 2 of my 3-part presentation exposing the flaws of the RPI is a proposal for a simple, common sense fix to some of the major problems with the RPI. I called it RPI+ because it takes the RPI and adds an extra performance component to come up with a more accurate number.

Essentially, all it's doing is asking 'If Team X has a RPI of 100, did they outperform or underperform expectations for team with that RPI and that schedule. A team that won more games than expected for its RPI would have a pretty strong case that its rating was too low. A team that lost more games than expected for its RPI would be viewed as being rated too high. This is basically what I do with the Colton Index, only I start with the win-loss record and do multiple iterations of the expectations and performance relative to expectations until the complete ranking set is as correct as it can be. The RPI+ proposal uses just one iteration of the performance component (although additional iterations would only make it better). You'll see in a minute that just one iteration does have a significant impact. Also, because you can capture the home-road adjustments more accurately in the performance component, you really wouldn't need to do the crude 40% home/road adjustment upfront. You'd be better off just using the old RPI and let the home/road show up in the performance component. However, I used the new RPI here simply because it makes for easier comparison of teams that would be most impacted.

The other proposed change is to finally abandon the deeply flawed, linear RPI SOS measure. Since we are calculating expected winning percentage for the performance component, it's easy to implement here. The proposed SOS captures the home/road influence accurately and recognizes that SOS is not linear (playing the 1st, 2nd and 330th ranked teams on the road IS NOT the same as playing the 110th, 111th and 112th rated teams at home).

Below is the new RPI and RPI+ for the top 90 RPI teams plus 6 teams who would be top 90 under RPI+. The 'Exp Wins' column shows the Expected Number of Wins for a team with that RPI given its schedule. So Tennessee would be expected to win 28.11 with its schedule if it were the #1 RPI team. Since they won 28 games, you'd expect their 'true' ranking to be slightly lower than that. The far right column shows the expect number of wins in the second iteration (if you account for the change in a team's rating for RPI+ and the change in the rating of all its opponents). I only show it here for information purposes, so you can get some sense directionally which way teams would go if you added additional performance iterations. The top 20 overperformers relative to RPI are shaded in yellow. The top 20 underperformers relative to RPI are shaded in orange.

Just adding the one performance components is a huge improvement in the RPI. The wins versus expectations are off by an average of 0.89 wins per team in the new RPI. Adding that one performance component brings that number down to 0.34 (the Colton Index is off by 0.04 per team). The other way I like to look at these rankings is by measuring the amount of informational lift that ranking provides over the most simple rank order you could think of...simply sorting teams by their win-loss record. We use alternative rankings because we know win-loss record doesn't tell the full story. Presumably, the ranking is a more accurate reflection of what's going on during the course of a basketball season, otherwise we wouldn't use it. Therefore, it's easy to measure different rating systems on how much additional value they provide.

Traditionally, the new RPI has been about 5-6% worse than the old RPI, and the Colton Index has provided 40-50% more lift versus the baseline relative to the new RPI. The 2007-08 season is no exception. I know it's hard to believe, but the old RPI is 5.2% better than the new RPI. The Colton Index outperforms the new RPI by 44%. RPI+ is 33.5% better than the new RPI. This seems like an easy fix that would provide the Selection Committee with significantly better information to make their decisions.

A couple teams to note from the table below:

- Vanderbilt seemed to be overseeded as a 4 seed, and we see their performance was over a game worse than expected from that lofty 12th-rated RPI. The 2nd iteration would suggest they would go down even futher with additional iterations. UNLV is another team that seemed to be overseeded as well.

- The Selection Committee doesn't seem to have much faith in very strong RPI numbers for mid-majors (see Southern Illinois last year). Butler seemed to suffer from this bias this year, although the RPI+ numbers suggest they outperformed their 17th-rated RPI.

- Arizona St is one of the biggest movers amongst tourney or bubble teams. They move up 30 spots when you consider they outperformed their RPI rating by 1.73 games. Also, by moving away from the linear nature of SOS, the 'bottom feeders' in their non-conference schedule don't hurt as much and their SOS increases from 77 to 32.

- South Alabama doesn't move in RPI+ (they would move down in future iterations), but just check out that SOS impact. 127 vs 203.

			EXP WINS		RANK		SOS		EXP WINS2
TEAM	W	L	RPI	RES	RPI	RPI+	RPI	RPI+	RPI+	RES2
Tennessee	28	4	28.11	-0.11	1	3	1	8	28.30	-0.30
North Carolina	32	2	30.51	1.49	2	1	3	21	31.46	0.54
Memphis	33	1	31.29	1.71	3	2	27	115	32.28	0.72
UCLA	30	3	28.32	1.68	4	4	14	22	29.42	0.58
Kansas	30	3	28.90	1.10	5	5	50	72	29.68	0.32
Texas	27	6	27.25	-0.25	6	8	4	6	26.97	0.03
Duke	27	5	26.49	0.51	7	6	8	10	26.89	0.11
Georgetown	27	5	26.44	0.56	8	7	32	43	26.97	0.03
Xavier	27	6	27.34	-0.34	9	11	24	55	27.50	-0.50
Drake	26	4	25.35	0.65	10	10	68	92	26.03	-0.03
Wisconsin	29	4	27.33	1.67	11	9	61	86	28.50	0.50
Vanderbilt	26	7	27.12	-1.12	12	17	41	83	26.55	-0.55
Louisville	24	8	24.50	-0.50	13	14	6	23	24.02	-0.02
Stanford	26	7	25.06	0.94	14	13	56	29	25.72	0.28
Pittsburgh	25	9	25.03	-0.03	15	15	20	12	24.92	0.08
Michigan St	25	8	25.58	-0.58	16	22	43	58	24.80	0.20
Butler	29	3	27.40	1.60	17	12	128	156	28.88	0.12
Connecticut	24	8	24.10	-0.10	18	21	35	40	23.74	0.26
Clemson	23	9	22.91	0.09	19	20	17	19	22.91	0.09
Marquette	23	9	22.50	0.50	20	19	21	15	22.81	0.19
Kent St	28	6	27.73	0.27	21	24	111	140	28.24	-0.24
Indiana	25	7	24.49	0.51	22	23	59	80	25.10	-0.10
Washington St	24	8	22.72	1.28	23	16	46	25	23.61	0.39
UNLV	25	7	26.17	-1.17	24	34	63	141	25.48	-0.48
BYU	27	7	26.78	0.22	25	25	97	122	27.30	-0.30
Notre Dame	24	7	22.76	1.24	26	18	81	67	23.89	0.11
Oklahoma	22	11	22.16	-0.16	27	31	13	24	21.88	0.12
Southern California	21	11	20.68	0.32	28	27	9	3	20.49	0.51
West Virginia	23	10	22.64	0.36	29	28	45	33	22.85	0.15
Gonzaga	25	7	23.92	1.08	30	26	93	102	24.99	0.01
			EXP WINS		RANK		SOS		EXP WINS2
TEAM	W	L	RPI	RES	RPI	RPI+	RPI	RPI+	RPI+	RES2
Arkansas	22	11	23.29	-1.29	31	40	25	59	21.98	0.02
Dayton	21	10	22.39	-1.39	32	42	33	78	21.16	-0.16
Illinois St	23	9	23.85	-0.85	33	39	71	93	22.84	0.16
Miami (FL)	21	10	21.22	-0.22	34	36	42	48	21.01	-0.01
Davidson	25	6	24.43	0.57	35	30	129	150	24.96	0.04
St. Mary's	24	6	23.28	0.72	36	29	138	145	24.16	-0.16
Arizona	18	14	19.27	-1.27	37	46	2	1	17.19	0.81
South Alabama	24	6	24.19	-0.19	38	37	127	203	24.60	-0.60
Western Kentucky	25	6	24.62	0.38	39	35	142	201	25.53	-0.53
Mississippi St	22	10	22.33	-0.33	40	41	58	85	22.26	-0.26
Texas A&M	23	10	21.99	1.01	41	33	52	56	23.06	-0.06
Massachusetts	21	10	21.31	-0.31	42	43	70	84	21.17	-0.17
Baylor	20	10	19.71	0.29	43	38	49	54	19.98	0.02
Saint Joseph's	21	12	21.55	-0.55	44	48	53	60	21.23	-0.23
Purdue	24	8	22.58	1.42	45	32	114	98	23.89	0.11
Creighton	20	10	20.40	-0.40	46	50	66	79	19.96	0.04
Temple	21	12	22.15	-1.15	47	58	51	73	20.65	0.35
Mississippi	21	10	21.31	-0.31	48	49	65	91	21.07	-0.07
Ohio State	19	13	19.61	-0.61	49	54	18	27	18.70	0.30
Kansas St	19	11	19.33	-0.33	50	51	34	51	18.61	0.39
Villanova	20	12	19.78	0.22	51	45	47	39	20.04	-0.04
Virginia Tech	19	13	19.98	-0.98	52	63	39	38	18.45	0.55
Oral Roberts	23	8	23.72	-0.72	53	59	157	191	23.56	-0.56
VCU	24	7	23.61	0.39	54	44	161	189	24.45	-0.45
Syracuse	19	13	19.68	-0.68	55	61	10	34	18.50	0.50
UAB	22	10	23.56	-1.56	56	70	95	155	22.12	-0.12
Kentucky	18	12	18.03	-0.03	57	55	19	41	18.02	-0.02
Oregon	18	13	18.02	-0.02	58	56	37	9	17.36	0.64
New Mexico	24	8	23.14	0.86	59	47	155	165	24.51	-0.51
Florida St	19	14	19.11	-0.11	60	60	15	16	18.49	0.51
			EXP WINS		RANK		SOS		EXP WINS2
TEAM	W	L	RPI	RES	RPI	RPI+	RPI	RPI+	RPI+	RES2
George Mason	23	10	24.79	-1.79	61	83	126	211	23.20	-0.20
Southern Illinois	17	14	18.40	-1.40	62	77	16	42	16.09	0.91
Cleveland St	19	12	20.40	-1.40	63	86	85	105	18.65	0.35
Stephen F. Austin	22	5	21.21	0.79	64	52	263	297	22.42	-0.42
Cornell	21	5	20.62	0.38	65	62	265	292	21.35	-0.35
Siena	22	10	23.09	-1.09	66	85	120	179	22.21	-0.21
Georgia Tech	15	17	15.70	-0.70	67	76	7	2	14.43	0.57
Charlotte	20	13	20.17	-0.17	68	71	64	95	20.12	-0.12
IUPUI	23	7	23.19	-0.19	69	73	238	277	23.44	-0.44
Utah St	23	10	24.93	-1.93	70	102	168	267	23.44	-0.44
Florida	21	11	19.92	1.08	71	57	87	94	21.22	-0.22
Miami (OH)	17	15	17.93	-0.93	72	89	54	50	16.83	0.17
Nevada	20	11	21.53	-1.53	73	100	132	161	20.18	-0.18
Texas Tech	15	15	15.65	-0.65	74	84	5	7	14.46	0.54
Akron	23	10	22.53	0.47	75	65	135	157	23.37	-0.37
Ohio	19	12	20.07	-1.07	76	94	109	123	18.94	0.06
Rhode Island	21	11	20.47	0.53	77	64	107	124	21.27	-0.27
Oklahoma St	16	15	15.94	0.06	78	72	12	11	15.85	0.15
Belmont	24	8	24.46	-0.46	79	82	229	293	24.81	-0.81
CS Fullerton	23	8	23.29	-0.29	80	79	199	249	23.24	-0.24
Houston	22	9	21.62	0.38	81	69	146	171	22.31	-0.31
San Diego St	19	12	19.80	-0.80	82	90	99	118	19.00	0.00
Arizona St	19	12	17.27	1.73	83	53	77	32	18.58	0.42
Austin Peay	24	10	26.00	-2.00	84	116	205	288	25.12	-1.12
Maryland	18	14	18.05	-0.05	85	80	31	63	17.89	0.11
Wright St	21	10	20.21	0.79	86	66	149	144	21.35	-0.35
Boise St	24	8	23.59	0.41	87	74	196	276	24.61	-0.61
UMBC	23	8	23.57	-0.57	88	95	264	302	23.57	-0.57
UC Santa Barbara	22	8	21.62	0.38	89	75	208	221	22.33	-0.33
American	21	11	22.58	-1.58	90	120	158	237	21.48	-0.48
California	16	15	15.51	0.49	92	81	28	14	15.61	0.39
Nebraska	19	12	17.39	1.61	96	68	94	69	18.72	0.28
Wake Forest	17	13	15.26	1.74	100	67	86	52	17.20	-0.20
Minnesota	20	13	18.75	1.25	101	78	113	87	20.03	-0.03
Providence	15	16	13.62	1.38	112	87	44	17	15.09	-0.09
Washington	16	16	14.06	1.94	121	88	60	18	15.78	0.22

More Bracket Thoughts

noreply@blogger.com (Jim Colton) — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 16:24:00 +0000

The Final Colton Index is up. In my bracket projections, I didn't compute the impact of the final five games correctly (for example I had a loss for Texas but not the corresponding win for Kansas). It's irrelevant now, but the numbers do reflect the corrected projected seeds using my objective, data-driven approach. Kansas would've been ahead of Tennessee as a 1 seed if I had done it correctly in the first place.

1: North Carolina, UCLA, Memphis, Kansas
2: Tennessee, Duke, Texas, Wisconsin
3: Georgetown, Stanford, Drake, Washington St
4: Butler, Pittsburgh, Louisville, Xavier
5: Southern California, Connecticut, Marquette, Michigan St
6: Clemson, Notre Dame, Indiana, Vanderbilt
7: Kent St, Purdue, Oklahoma, West Virginia
8: Texas A&M, Gonzaga, Arizona, Miami (FL)
9: BYU, Baylor, Davidson, Arizona St
10: Oregon, Illinois St, St. Mary's, Arkansas
11: Villanova, Kansas St, Florida St, UNLV
12: Mississippi St, Temple, Western Kentucky, Oral Roberts
13: Georgia, Cornell, George Mason, Siena
14: CS Fullerton, Boise St, San Diego, Belmont
15: UMBC, Winthrop, Portland St, American
16: Austin Peay, UT Arlington, Mt St. Mary's, Coppin St, Miss Valley St

Last 4 In: Villanova, Kansas St, Florida St, Mississippi St
First 4 Out: Ohio State, Syracuse, Saint Joseph's, Massachusetts
Next 4 Out: Dayton, Creighton, Virginia Tech, Mississippi

As promised, I wanted to take a closer look at Arizona St, who I think has the biggest beef of any team that did not make the tournament. According to the comments from Tom O'Connor, it's clear the Arizona St's NC SOS and overall RPI (weighed down by that non-conf SOS) were the main reasons why they didn't get in. Arizona St got killed by the 'bottom feeder' effect, too many sub-250 teams on its schedule. These RPI killers (unfairly) dragged down their profile to the extent that it cost them an at-large bid.

Arizona St fans are hoping that Herb Sendek and Co. will get the message and schedule better in the future. You don't have to play the Duke's of the world, just avoid the bottom feeders. It seems like a innocent and harmless decision, but the non-conference filler games (usually at home for major programs) are the main drivers of a team's RPI SOS and overall RPI. The RPI SOS formula is essentially an average of the RPI's of your opponents. So playing the 1st, 2nd, 330th ranked teams on the road would give you the same SOS as playing the 110th, 111th, and 112th ranked team at home, although most quality teams would go 1-2 with the first schedule and 3-0 with the second schedule.

The key is to avoid the bottom feeders. For whatever reason, ASU has four of them this year (excluding Princeton).

Montana St (236 RPI, 286 RPI last year)
Florida Gulf Coast (291, non DI last year - note to all college coaches, never schedule games against new DI entrants)
Idaho (299, 305 last year)
St Francis PA (314, 321 last year)
The message is clear: scheduling sub-250 RPI teams is doing your program a disservice. These four games are the reason that ASU is playing in the NIT right now.

Hypothetically, if ASU had gone upstream slightly and played Marshall (144), NW St (190), Wisc Green Bay (148) and Loyola-MD (172) instead, they would be risking a grand total of 0.3 wins with this 'tougher' schedule (in other words, every three years or so they would be expected to lose one of these games eventually), yet their tournament profile would look a lot different.

RPI - 63 vs 83
RPI SOS - 47 vs 77
NC RPI - 53 s 108
NC SOS - 189 vs 294

The moral of the story, avoid the cupcakes at all costs.

I have no feelings one way or another towards Arizona St, but as a basketball fan I want to see the most deserving teams get a chance to play for the National Championship. Why should we settle for anything less? The only reason that South Alabama is in and Arizona St is out is because of the RPI and all of its subcomponents.

Arizona St: RPI 83, Colton Index (true body-of-work ranking using the same inputs as the RPI) 37
RPI SOS 77, Colton Index SOS 17
South Alabama: RPI 38, Colton Index 54
RPI SOS 127, Colton Index 214

The only reason the RPI differences are due to the flaws in the formula. So it's misinformation that makes South Alabama look better than its profile really is and Arizona St look worse than its profile really is. This is the only reason that South Alabama is in and Arizona St is out. How is this a good thing to anyone other than South Alabama? I can't really fault the Selection Committee as I'm sure they are well intentioned and take their responsibilities seriously, it's probably too much to ask for them to be able to sort out where the RPI might be skewed one way or another for each team. They have to take the numbers at face value, that the numbers they are provided represent what they are meant to represent.

If you were running a company, how long would you be in business if you relied on information that was this far off to make decisions? It wouldn't take long until you ran it into the ground, now matter how hard you worked and how hard you tried. Bad information will only lead to bad decision making in the long run, even if that information was 'just a tool' that you used in the decision-making process.

Unfortunately, there's no end in sight. Less deserving teams will continue to get in at the expense of more deserving teams. This year it just happens to be Arizona St. Four years ago, the NCAA implemented those crude home/road adjustments that made the rankings even more misleading than before (quite an accomplishment considering the old RPI wasn't very good to begin with). I was predicting disaster the first year they used those rankings (the Bob Bowlsby era), however the brackets that year were very good (very few complaints). That year, they had both the old RPI and the new RPI 'in the room', and I'm convinced that they couldn't reconcile the differences between the two (why the new RPI was helping certain teams and hurting others), they relied heavily on the Sagarin Elo rating (a body-of-work index very similar to mine), and the net result was a good bracket. Fast forward a year to Craig Littlepage. The new RPI is the only one 'in the room'. No old RPI, no comparison between new RPI and old RPI, thus no need or motivation to go to an outside source for information. The net result: the worst brackets in recent memory. I actually had some back-and-forth e-mails with Bowlsby and Littlepage prior to their role of Selection Committee chairs, and I had a lot more confidence in Littlepage than Bowlsby in terms of being able to do a good job. But I believe Bowlsby had good information and Littlepage has poor information.

Unfortunately, the NCAA will continue in ignorant bliss to provide their Selection Committee with bad information and we will keep getting South Alabama's and Arizona St's. The only way I see this changing is if more and more teams figure out how to game the system and NOBODY schedules games against sub-250 teams. That would cause big problems for the viability of these small schools and hopefully would expose the gaming flaws in the current formula. Only then might the NCAA take a closer look at the formulas, although I'm sure instead of fixing the problem they'd probably come up with a crude solution that might be better or might be worse.

Speaking of the RPI, here are the teams that over the last three years have had inflated or deflated RPI's on average. I shaded years in yellow where the team was slotted two lines below where they should've been or excluded from the field where they should've received an at-large bid. Orange shaded cells are years where the team was seeded two or more slots ahead of where they should've been or got an at-large when they shouldn't have.

DEFLATED RPI'S

DEFLATED RPI	RPI				COLTON INDEX
RPI vs JCI	2008	2007	2006	Avg	2008	2007	2006	Avg
Illinois St	33	138	233	134.7	39	108	181	109.3
Baylor	43	139	167	116.3	36	109	133	92.7
Wake Forest	100	123	85	102.7	64	78	66	69.3
Georgia Tech	67	52	160	93.0	67	29	113	69.7
St. John's	156	133	137	142.0	144	117	102	121.0
Indiana St	128	140	163	143.7	110	118	129	119.0
Miami (FL)	34	158	78	90.0	34	125	60	73.0
Penn State	157	199	106	154.0	115	174	67	118.7
Colorado	161	237	59	152.3	151	178	52	127.0
Notre Dame	26	31	95	50.7	17	23	55	31.7
North Carolina St	103	89	51	81.0	79	66	25	56.7
Purdue	45	42	175	87.3	26	46	127	66.3
Nebraska	96	103	96	98.3	55	88	69	70.7
Washington St	23	25	166	71.3	13	13	138	54.7
Auburn	153	112	117	127.3	143	81	109	111.0
Georgia	98	62	109	89.7	90	45	81	72.0
Mississippi	48	57	156	87.0	53	58	114	75.0
Oregon	58	21	147	75.3	38	9	120	55.7
Western Michigan	119	150	195	154.7	99	138	168	135.0
Iowa State	180	134	93	135.7	132	114	82	109.3
Southern California	28	48	118	64.7	22	25	100	49.0
Virginia Tech	52	34	146	77.3	52	40	105	65.7
Drake	10	113	176	99.7	11	94	153	86.0
George Washington	185	71	37	97.7	176	70	9	85.0
Missouri	117	90	139	115.3	82	76	115	91.0
New Mexico	59	166	120	115.0	62	131	122	105.0
Florida St	60	41	63	54.7	47	33	37	39.0
Clemson	19	51	77	49.0	21	27	62	36.7
Texas Tech	74	53	136	87.7	70	57	103	76.7
Arizona St	83	221	180	161.3	37	204	154	131.7

You gotta feel bad for Florida St. Three years in a row of deflated RPI's. Three years in a row they deserved an at-large bid and didn't get one.

INFLATED RPI's

DEFLATED RPI	RPI				COLTON INDEX
RPI vs JCI	2008	2007	2006	Avg	2008	2007	2006	Avg
Belmont	79	116	115	103.3	113	136	189	146.0
Albany	206	78	119	134.3	217	104	174	165.0
Holy Cross	149	59	111	106.3	177	93	134	134.7
Houston	81	83	54	72.7	84	102	88	91.3
Utah St	70	43	46	53.0	123	74	73	90.0
Austin Peay	84	117	155	118.7	145	151	173	156.3
Western Kentucky	39	95	55	63.0	48	121	77	82.0
Middle Tenn St	110	161	114	128.3	166	175	149	163.3
Saint Joseph's	44	96	43	61.0	56	120	57	77.7
Siena	66	128	125	106.3	95	157	139	130.3
BYU	25	18	67	36.7	33	32	87	50.7
Oral Roberts	53	91	131	91.7	72	107	146	108.3
Kent St	21	86	48	51.7	25	99	61	61.7
Northern Arizona	136	149	116	133.7	157	160	142	153.0
Drexel	241	39	129	136.3	207	62	145	138.0
Arizona	37	14	23	24.7	32	16	51	33.0
Tulsa	93	118	203	138.0	117	123	234	158.0
Bradley	105	38	33	58.7	86	56	49	63.7
Creighton	46	20	39	35.0	46	35	48	43.0
Butler	17	27	82	42.0	12	34	111	52.3
Hofstra	242	73	30	115.0	203	90	41	111.3
South Alabama	38	127	66	77.0	54	134	85	91.0
New Mexico St	124	69	97	96.7	146	71	117	111.3
VCU	54	44	81	59.7	57	55	104	72.0
San Diego St	82	66	56	68.0	97	67	76	80.0
Sam Houston	99	115	112	108.7	118	128	125	123.7
George Mason	61	121	26	69.3	87	127	45	86.3
Davidson	35	47	94	58.7	31	38	126	65.0
Tennessee	1	12	6	6.3	5	19	16	13.3
UNLV	24	10	92	42.0	41	17	110	56.0

Most of the teams listed here are mid-majors. One reason is the crude home/road adjustments in the RPI formula have the biggest negative impact on home games against very good teams (more likely to happen in the power conferences) and have the biggest positive impact on road games against very poor teams (more likely to have in non-power conferences). When you see a major conference team such as Tennessee and Arizona on this inflated list, that sticks out. They are obviously doing something with their non-conference schedule (avoiding the bottom feeders). Arizona and Tennessee have seemed to figure it out, although it didn't help Arizona the last two years (but did keep them in the field three years ago). Tennessee's 2 seed from three years ago is a mystery unless you rely on the RPI numbers heavily.

The Brackets - Initial Thoughts

noreply@blogger.com (Jim Colton) — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 02:22:00 +0000

Here is my final, data-driven bracket projections taking into consideration all of the conference championship games (my 'Final bracket' that I submitted was an average of two different outcomes and assumed Arkansas beat Georgia.

1: North Carolina, UCLA, Memphis, Tennessee
2: Kansas, Duke, Wisconsin, Texas
3: Georgetown, Stanford, Drake, Washington St
4: Butler, Pittsburgh, Louisville, Xavier
5: Southern California, Clemson, Connecticut, Marquette
6: Michigan St, Notre Dame, Indiana, Kent St
7: Vanderbilt, Purdue, West Virginia, Oklahoma
8: Texas A&M, Arizona, Gonzaga, Miami (FL)
9: BYU, Davidson, Arizona St, Baylor
10: Oregon, Illinois St, St. Mary's, Villanova
11: Arkansas, Kansas St, Florida St, UNLV
12: Ohio State, Temple, Western Kentucky, Oral Roberts
13: Cornell, George Mason, Siena, Georgia
14: CS Fullerton, Boise St, San Diego, Belmont
15: UMBC, Winthrop, Portland St, American
16: Austin Peay, UT Arlington, Mt St. Mary's, Coppin St, Miss Valley St

Last 4 In: Arkansas, Kansas St, Florida St, Ohio State
First 4 Out: Syracuse, Mississippi St, Saint Joseph's, Massachusetts
Next 4 Out: Dayton, Creighton, Virginia Tech, Mississippi

This one probably performed worst than my previous version since it drops Mississippi St. I had 50 teams within 1 seedline of actual, which I'm sure will be the worst of all bracketologists. Most of my differences were not unexpected, I think there's a good chance that a lot got all of the teams and nearly all of the seeds right. My hats off to you for predicting what the Committee would do.

Of course, that's not what I'm about. I'm all about exposing the weaknesses in the RPI and highlighting the teams that deviated most from the 'body-of-work' approach that the Selection Committee continues to say they judge teams on. Overall, I think the Selection Committee did a good job with the information they had in front of them, especially given some of the unique situations that went down this week. However, I think that misleading information may have skewed their decision making, and ultimately caused less deserving teams in the tournament at the expense of more deserving teams. Obviously, this wasn't the intent of the Selection Committe, they are hard working, well-intentioned people that take this task seriously. I only blame the NCAA for continuing to provide the Selection Committee with bad information that makes already a tough job that much tougher, especially when these problems would be easily fixed.

I will likely dive deeper into some of these issues later this week, but here's the list of winners and losers.

Losers - Teams Lower Than They Should've Been

Proj	Act				RANK		SOS		NC SOS
Seed	Seed	TEAM	W	L	JCI	RPI	JCI	RPI	JCI	RPI	QW	QL
3	5	Drake	26	4	11	10	82	68	114	126	15	15
4	7	Butler	29	3	12	17	127	128	78	109	21	7
6	8	Indiana	25	7	23	22	66	57	150	71	22	20
6	9	Kent St	28	6	25	21	128	111	96	56	27	30
8	10	Arizona	18	14	33	37	1	2	19	5	23	48
9	11	Baylor	20	10	36	43	47	48	213	130	38	40
10	12	Villanova	20	12	42	51	37	47	228	157	34	59
9		Arizona St	19	12	37	83	17	77	305	293	39	42
10		Illinois St	23	9	39	33	84	72	184	115	42	38
12		Ohio State	19	13	43	49	24	17	25	12	51	43
11		Florida St	19	14	47	59	23	14	197	128	36	65

The average Colton Index for these teams is 32 versus an average RPI of 39. But the RPI's aren't deflated across the board. There seems to be a bias against the mid-majors here...an assumption that teams such as Drake, Butler and Kent State (and Illinois St by association) aren't as good as their records or RPI's indicate, or put in other words, they didn't play anybody therefore have inflated records. Well, each of those mid-majors have profiles of wins and losses factoring in weaker schedules that still put them as deserving higher seeds, so penalizing them further would be like giving them losses for games they either won or didn't play. Drake had a 26-4 record with an RPI SOS of 68. Notre Dame had a weaker schedule (according to the RPI) and went 24-7 with a RPI SOS of 81, and had the same seed. But Kansas has a RPI SOS of 60 and got a 1 seed with a 29-3 record. There seems to be a disconnect.

I want to dive into the issue deeper later this week, but Arizona St simply flat out got screwed of the tournament this year. Of course, they didn't do themselves any favors with their non-conference scheduling. I can't argue that their non-conference wasn't weak, I had it even easier than the RPI (305 vs 293). However, the difference comes with how much this weighs on the final decision. I consider it as part of the body of work and Arizona St still rans 37th overall even with that very weak schedule (the cupcake wins don't tell us much about how good Arizona St really is, therefore don't help their profile much at all). In the RPI, these games drag down the team's overall RPI and SOS to the point like they barely look like a bubble team at all. (Plus, if the Committee is going to list that as a reason you didn't get picked, then they are already overweighting that factor more than it should be. Of course, Stanford and Notre Dame had equally weak non-conference SOS's and it didn't hurt them at all. Notre Dame even got seeded a little higher than expected.) Even if you win those games against the cupcakes, just showing up drags your RPI down. The seemingly harmless decision of playing Florida Gulf Coast, Idaho and St Francis (PA) is what kept them out of the tournament, not what they did or didn't do during the other 29 games of the season. If they had played Vermont, Wichita St and Navy instead (games they still would've won), they'd be playing in the NCAA instead of the NIT right now.

I could (and may) write a whole post about the plight of Florida St. This is the third year in a row that I felt they deserved to get in but didn't. They are the quinticessential bubble team. But every year they have a deflated RPI that's right in the 40-60 sweet spot, an undesirable position to be in. Check out their numbers the last three years.

2007-08: JCI 47, RPI 60
2006-07 JCI 33, RPI 40
2005-06 JCI 37, RPI 63

You gotta feel for these guys. Every year there are going to be winners and losers in this process, but imagine if it was your team that was on the outside looking in for three years in a row. And based on e-mails I've received from Seminole fans, it seems like they've resigned themselves to the fact that it will keep on happening. Florida St gets so little respect that they weren't even listed among the 8-9 teams more 'most surprising team left out' fan poll.

Winners - Teams Higher Than They Should've Been

Proj	Act				RANK		SOS		NC SOS
Seed	Seed	TEAM	W	L	JCI	RPI	JCI	RPI	JCI	RPI	QW	QL
7	4	Vanderbilt	26	7	24	12	91	40	277	93	30	25
11	8	UNLV	25	7	40	24	152	63	221	60	62	34
	8	Mississippi St	22	10	45	40	90	58	217	124	50	51
	10	South Alabama	24	6	53	38	214	127	127	69	83	35
	11	Saint Joseph's	21	12	54	45	73	51	135	116	29	99
	11	Kentucky	18	12	60	58	58	21	129	98	55	63
15	13	Winthrop	20	11	128	107	211	178	56	38	112	123

Here's where you can really see a pattern. The average team listed here has a RPI of 46 and average Colton Index of 58, and average RPI SOS of 77 vs 127, and an average RPI NC SOS of 85 vs 166. Remember those differences are based purely on the nuance (ie flaws) of the RPI formula. It's clear that the RPI has a role in the process. It's almost unfathomable that the NCAA would rely on SOS numbers that may be off by 90 or more (look at Vandy's NC SOS of 93 vs 277...yikes!) slots for any given team. How does the Committee make any informed decisions using inputs with margins of error that large? Certainly, it skews the profiles of Vandy, UNLV, Mississippi St and South Alabama in particular.

The SEC was the main beneficiary of the seeding process, as the Committee must've felt that Mississippi St and Kentucky were better than their records and profiles indicated (or maybe it was just the Silve factor). The only way to determine strength of a conference is to view how the perform against non-conference foes. Unfortunately, nearly all of this occurs in the first half of the season. The rest of the season is just teams beating up on each other in conference. The SEC doesn't fare too well against other conferences, mainly because Kentucky, Florida and Missippi St performed poorly in non-conference play. It drags down the conference looks overall. Maybe it's true that those teams improved as the season went on, but is it 'body-of-work' or not? I even factored in last 10 games and Kentucky was still way down the list. By discounting their non-conference season, you might as well be giving Kentucky wins for games that they lost.

THIRTEEN TEAMS MORE DESERVING THAN SOUTH ALABAMA

South Alabama is the anti-Arizona St. The danger of being a bubble team with a deflated RPI is that there's going to be less deserving bubble teams with inflated RPI's of the same amount or more. South Alabama's profile and tourney-worthiness falls apart if their RPI were 53 instead of 38 and SOS was 214 instead of 127. I have them 83rd in quality wins (a summation of a team's wins scaled by difficulty), the next closest at-large is BYU at 56th. And considering they got a 10 seed, it looks like they got in the tournament by a pretty safe margin.

Proj	Act				RANK		SOS		NC SOS
Seed	Seed	TEAM	W	L	JCI	RPI	JCI	RPI	JCI	RPI	QW	QL
9		Arizona St	19	12	37	83	17	77	305	293	39	42
10		Illinois St	23	9	39	33	84	72	184	115	42	38
11		Florida St	19	14	47	59	23	14	197	128	36	65
12		Ohio State	19	13	43	49	24	17	25	12	51	43
		Syracuse	19	13	51	55	36	9	195	20	35	72
		Massachusetts	21	10	50	42	93	71	138	88	43	61
		Dayton	21	10	49	32	92	33	147	26	41	64
		Creighton	20	10	46	46	76	65	177	91	63	45
		Virginia Tech	19	13	52	52	38	38	176	135	53	55
		Mississippi	21	10	55	48	105	67	269	122	47	67
		VCU	24	7	57	54	191	161	82	85	60	56
		Nebraska	19	12	56	97	57	94	281	310	69	52
	11	Kentucky	18	12	60	58	58	21	129	98	55	63
		California	16	15	58	92	5	26	291	175	52	62
	10	South Alabama	24	6	53	38	214	127	127	69	83	35

Bracket Projections - Mar 16th (PM Update - FINAL)

noreply@blogger.com (Jim Colton) — Sun, 16 Mar 2008 20:01:00 +0000

Here is my final bracket projection. Below, I ran the Colton Index-based seedings on all of the remaining 8 scenarios, but I doubt the Committee has built that much flexibility into the brackets. So I'm putting my stake in the ground with a bracket projecting that Wisconsin and Arkansas win (then averaging the rank between the outcome of Texas vs Kansas). If Georgia and/or Illinois win (go Illini!), they will simply replace the last two teams in.

Just like every other year, I fully expect that I will finish the worst amongst all of the bracketologists. However, I'd caution against thinking this is a black mark against my rating system or something. I'm simply churning out a data-driven brackets that is based on the things the Committee says to value, mostly body-of-work. And more importantly, I don't rely on the RPI at all. Where the actual seedings differ from mine will highlight exactly where the Committee veered from this consistent, objective approach and/or relied on misleading information from the RPI or any of its subcomponents.

Final Bracket Projections
1: North Carolina, UCLA, Memphis, Tennessee
2: Kansas, Texas, Duke, Wisconsin
3: Georgetown, Stanford, Drake, Washington St
4: Butler, Pittsburgh, Louisville, Xavier
5: Southern California, Michigan St, Clemson, Marquette
6: Connecticut, Notre Dame, Indiana, Vanderbilt
7: Kent St, Purdue, Oklahoma, West Virginia
8: Texas A&M, Gonzaga, Arizona, Miami (FL)
9: Arkansas, Baylor, BYU, Davidson
10: Arizona St, Oregon, Illinois St, St. Mary's
11: Villanova, Kansas St, Mississippi St, Florida St
12: UNLV, Ohio State, Temple, Western Kentucky
13: Oral Roberts, Cornell, George Mason, Siena
14: CS Fullerton, Boise St, San Diego, Belmont
15: UMBC, Winthrop, Portland St, American
16: Austin Peay, UT Arlington, Mt St. Mary's, Coppin St, Miss Valley St

Last 4 In: Kansas St, Mississippi St, Florida St*, Ohio State*
First 4 Out: Syracuse, Saint Joseph's, Massachusetts, Dayton
Next 4 Out: Creighton, Mississippi, Virginia Tech, Kentucky
* Potentially replaced by Illinois (go Illini!) and/or Georgia

I think it's safe to say the teams most as risk are Florida St, Arizona St, Ohio St, Oregon and Villanova probably are at the most risk (from highest risk to lowest risk), likely to be replaced by Saint Joseph's, Virginia Tech, South Alabama, Kentucky and (grasping for a fifth team) Syracuse or Mississippi. I fully expect Florida St and Arizona St to be out of the field, despite the fact they deserve to be in.

If you were able to factor in the results of the remaining three games completely, my approach would come up with the following seeds based on the 8 potential scenarios below.

Scenario A: Georgia, Kansas, Illinois win
Scenario B: Georgia, Kansas, Wisconsin win
Scenario C: Arkansas, Kansas, Illinois win
Scenario D: Arkansas, Kansas, Wisconsin win
Scenario E: Georgia, Texas, Illinois win
Scenario F: Georgia, Texas, Wisconsin win
Scenario G: Arkansas, Texas, Illinois win
Scenario H: Arkansas, Texas, Wisconsin win

Team	A	B	C	D	E	F	G	H
North Carolina	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
UCLA	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
Memphis	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
Tennessee	1	1	1	1	2	2	2	2
Kansas	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2
Texas	2	2	2	2	1	1	1	1
Duke	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2
Wisconsin	3	2	3	2	3	2	3	2
Georgetown	2	3	2	3	2	3	2	3
Stanford	3	3	3	3	3	3	3	3
Drake	3	3	3	3	3	3	3	3
Washington St	3	3	3	3	3	3	3	3
Butler	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	4
Pittsburgh	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	4
Louisville	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	4
Xavier	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	4
Southern California	5	5	5	5	5	5	5	5
Clemson	5	5	5	5	5	5	5	5
Michigan St	6	6	6	6	6	5	6	5
Marquette	5	5	5	5	5	5	5	5
Connecticut	5	5	5	5	5	6	5	6
Notre Dame	6	6	6	6	6	6	6	6
Indiana	6	6	6	6	6	6	6	6
Vanderbilt	7	7	6	6	7	7	6	6
Kent St	6	6	7	7	6	6	7	7
Purdue	7	7	7	7	8	7	8	7
Oklahoma	7	7	7	7	7	7	7	7
West Virginia	7	7	7	7	7	8	7	8
Texas A&M	8	8	8	8	7	7	7	7
Gonzaga	8	8	8	8	8	8	8	8
Arizona	8	8	8	8	8	8	8	8
Miami (FL)	8	8	8	8	8	8	8	8
Arkansas	11	11	9	9	11	11	9	9
BYU	9	9	9	9	9	9	9	9
Baylor	9	9	9	9	9	9	9	9
Davidson	9	9	9	9	9	9	10	9
Arizona St	9	9	10	10	9	9	9	10
Oregon	10	10	10	10	10	10	10	10
Illinois St	10	10	10	10	10	10	10	10
St. Mary's	10	10	10	10	10	10	10	10
Villanova	10	10	11	11	10	10	11	11
Kansas St	11	11	11	11	11	11	11	11
Mississippi St			11	11			11	11
Florida St	11	11	11	11	11	11	11	11
UNLV	11	11	12	12	11	11	12	12
Ohio State		12		12		12		12
Temple	12	12	12	12	12	12	12	12
Western Kentucky	12	12	12	12	12	12	12	12
Oral Roberts	12	12	12	13	12	12	12	13
Illinois	12		13		12		13
Cornell	13	13	13	13	13	13	13	13
George Mason	13	13	13	13	13	13	13	13
Siena	13	13	13	13	13	13	13	13
Georgia	13	13			13	13
CS Fullerton	14	14	14	14	14	14	14	14
Boise St	14	14	14	14	14	14	14	14
San Diego	14	14	14	14	14	14	14	14
Belmont	14	14	14	14	14	14	14	14
UMBC	15	15	15	15	15	15	15	15
Winthrop	15	15	15	15	15	15	15	15
Portland St	15	15	15	15	15	15	15	15
American	15	15	15	15	15	15	15	15
Austin Peay	16	16	16	16	16	16	16	16
UT Arlington	16	16	16	16	16	16	16	16
Mt St. Mary's	16	16	16	16	16	16	16	16
Coppin St	16	16	16	16	16	16	16	16
Miss Valley St	16	16	16	16	16	16	16	16

You'll notice some flip-flopping of seeds based on the last three games, but I think these are most likely already set in stone. Texas would be worthy as a 1 seed if they beat Kansas, but Kansas wouldn't have enough to overcome Tennessee if they beat Texas. It's doubtful that the Committee has this type of contingency in place. They either the winner of the Texas/Kansas game as a 1 seed, the loser as a 2 seed. Or they have both as a 2 seed and Tennessee locked in as a 1 seed. The same goes for Wisconsin, who could move ahead of Georgetown as a 2 seed with a win over Illinois. I'm guessing they already have Wisconsin as a 2 or a 3 (probably a 3) and the outcome of today's game won't change it.

Once the brackets come out, I'll do some additional analysis on teams that were overseeded and underseeded relative to my projections.

Bracket Update - March 16th (AM Edition)

noreply@blogger.com (Jim Colton) — Sun, 16 Mar 2008 13:54:00 +0000

Here's my bracket as of Sunday morning. Look for one more this afternoon. I will also likely post some scenario-based seeds depending on the outcomes of this afternoon's games, although the Committee won't likely have time to fully account for the SEC and Big Ten title games.

Again, this is what I think the brackets SHOULD look like if the Selection Committee practices what it preaches (i.e., body-of-work with extra emphasis on last 10 games and quality wins to determine the most deserving teams). I'm not trying to guess what the Committee WILL do (a la Joe Lunardi). The actual brackets will look much different than mine because the Committee will use different factors and/or weight them differently from team to team, and they have the RPI numbers and all their subcomponents, which will skew the results simply because the silly nuances of the formula.

1: North Carolina, UCLA, Memphis, Tennessee
2: Kansas, Texas, Duke, Wisconsin
3: Georgetown, Stanford, Drake, Washington St
4: Butler, Pittsburgh, Louisville, Xavier
5: Southern California, Clemson, Michigan St, Marquette
6: Connecticut, Notre Dame, Indiana, Vanderbilt
7: Kent St, Purdue, Oklahoma, West Virginia
8: Texas A&M, Arizona, Gonzaga, Miami (FL)
9: BYU, Baylor, Arkansas, Davidson
10: Arizona St, Oregon, Illinois St, St. Mary's
11: Villanova, Kansas St, Florida St, UNLV
12: Mississippi St, Ohio State, Temple, Western Kentucky
13: Oral Roberts, Cornell, George Mason, Siena
14: CS Fullerton, Boise St, San Diego, Belmont
15: UMBC, Winthrop, Portland St, American
16: Austin Peay, Mt St. Mary's, Northwestern St, Coppin St, Miss Valley St

Last 4 In: Kansas St, Florida St, Mississippi St, Ohio State
First 4 Out: Syracuse, Saint Joseph's, Massachusetts, Dayton
Next 4 Out: Creighton, Virginia Tech, Mississippi, Kentucky

Bubble Teams

Here's the overview of the bubble teams again. I think everyone from Arkansas above is locks or near locks (except maybe Arizona) and the teams below South Alabama are probably barely bubble worthy, but I included them here for context if nothing else. Of the teams I have in, Florida St, Arizona St, Ohio St, Oregon and Villanova probably are at the most risk (from highest risk to lowest risk), likely to be replaced by Saint Joseph's, Virginia Tech, South Alabama, Kentucky and (grasping for a fifth team) Syracuse or Mississippi. I fully expect Florida St and Arizona St to be out of the field, despite the fact they deserve to be in.

Georgia and Illinois (go Illini!) probably 'deserve' 13 seeds if they were to win their games today, but will likely get 12 seeds by simply replacing the last bubble teams in. The Selection Committee probably won't be able to get have contingency plans any more sophisticated than that.

Proj				RANK		SOS		NC SOS
Seed	TEAM	W	L	JCI	RPI	JCI	RPI	JCI	RPI	QW	QL
8	Texas A&M	23	10	30	41	45	51	275	220	24	35
8	Arizona	18	14	32	37	1	2	19	4	23	48
8	Miami (FL)	21	10	34	34	50	41	282	143	32	46
9	BYU	27	7	33	25	130	97	145	144	57	22
9	Baylor	20	10	36	42	46	47	208	127	36	38
9	Arkansas	22	10	39	26	70	20	194	82	30	57
10	Arizona St	19	12	37	83	16	77	305	294	38	42
10	Oregon	18	13	38	58	4	37	185	169	43	37
10	Illinois St	23	9	40	33	85	73	186	115	42	40
10	St. Mary's	24	6	35	36	139	136	86	28	72	21
11	Villanova	20	12	43	51	38	48	231	158	34	61
11	Kansas St	19	11	41	50	44	33	179	86	49	43
11	Florida St	19	14	47	59	24	15	196	130	37	66
12	Mississippi St	22	10	45	39	87	57	217	125	50	51
12	Ohio State	19	13	44	49	23	17	25	13	51	44
	Syracuse	19	13	51	55	36	9	199	20	35	76
	Saint Joseph's	21	12	56	45	73	53	137	116	29	99
	Massachusetts	21	10	50	43	93	71	139	89	45	62
	Dayton	21	10	49	32	92	34	149	27	41	65
	Creighton	20	10	46	47	77	66	175	91	63	45
	Virginia Tech	19	13	52	53	41	38	177	136	55	58
	Mississippi	21	10	53	46	103	64	271	123	46	68
	Kentucky	18	12	58	57	54	22	130	98	53	63
	Nebraska	19	12	55	96	55	94	280	310	69	52
	VCU	24	7	57	54	190	160	83	83	60	56
	California	16	15	59	92	5	26	290	175	52	64
	Oklahoma St	16	15	63	73	11	11	152	102	54	78
	South Alabama	24	6	54	38	214	127	126	69	83	36
	Georgia Tech	15	17	67	67	3	7	23	45	44	102
	Southern Illinois	17	14	66	62	49	16	15	6	58	90
	Washington	16	16	65	121	7	60	181	223	65	69
	New Mexico	24	8	62	60	176	155	311	269	81	53
	Wake Forest	17	13	64	100	52	86	219	268	68	71
	Florida	21	11	61	72	95	87	328	271	74	55
	Maryland	18	14	75	84	59	29	228	65	47	110

Bracket Update - March 14th (Afternoon Edition)

noreply@blogger.com (Jim Colton) — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 21:33:00 +0000

I updated the Colton Index ratings with some of the early Friday games, so we have a new bracket as well. Arkansas is leading late against Vandy, Kentucky and UNLV can help themselves with wins tonight. Virginia Tech still has a pulse, but they'll have to beat North Carolina tomorrow to have any chance.

Of the teams I have in my bracket, I think Arizona St, Florida St and Syracuse are the biggest risks of not making it in the end, potentially replaced by Arkansas, UNLV and either Dayton or South Alabama.

1: North Carolina, Memphis, UCLA, Tennessee
2: Duke, Texas, Kansas, Georgetown
3: Wisconsin, Stanford, Washington St, Drake
4: Xavier, Butler, Louisville, Marquette
5: Michigan St, Indiana, Southern California, Connecticut
6: Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Vanderbilt, Purdue
7: Clemson, West Virginia, Oklahoma, Kent St
8: Gonzaga, Texas A&M, Arizona, Miami (FL)
9: BYU, Baylor, Arizona St, Davidson
10: Oregon, Illinois St, St. Mary's, Kansas St
11: Villanova, Mississippi St, Ohio State, Florida St
12: Syracuse, Massachusetts, Kentucky, Western Kentucky
13: Stephen F. Austin, Oral Roberts, Cornell, UC Santa Barbara
14: George Mason, Siena, San Diego, Belmont
15: Utah St, UMBC, Winthrop, Portland St
16: American, Austin Peay, Morgan St, Mt St. Mary's, Alabama St

Last 4 In: Florida St, Syracuse, Massachusetts, Kentucky
First 4 Out: Dayton, Creighton, Arkansas, UNLV
Next 4 Out: Virginia Tech, Saint Joseph's, Nebraska, Mississippi

Bracket Update - March 14th

noreply@blogger.com (Jim Colton) — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 16:57:00 +0000

Here is my latest bracket. A lot of bubble teams are losing early in the conference tourneys. Fortunately for them, nearly everybody they are competing with is losing as well. Very few teams have strengthened their case. It seems like a very weak bubble this year, which to me means there's no telling what the Committee will do this year.

I'm probably the only one who has Florida St in, but they have a resume that stacks up just as well as the others.

1: North Carolina, Memphis, UCLA, Tennessee
2: Duke, Kansas, Texas, Georgetown
3: Wisconsin, Stanford, Washington St, Drake
4: Xavier, Butler, Louisville, Marquette
5: Indiana, Southern California, Connecticut, Notre Dame
6: Michigan St, Pittsburgh, Vanderbilt, Purdue
7: Clemson, West Virginia, Oklahoma, Miami (FL)
8: Kent St, Texas A&M, Gonzaga, Arizona
9: BYU, Baylor, Arizona St, Davidson
10: Oregon, Illinois St, St. Mary's, Kansas St
11: Villanova, Ohio State, Mississippi St, Florida St
12: Syracuse, Massachusetts, Kentucky, Western Kentucky
13: Stephen F. Austin, Oral Roberts, Cornell, UC Santa Barbara
14: George Mason, Siena, San Diego, Belmont
15: Utah St, UMBC, Winthrop, Portland St
16: American, Austin Peay, Morgan St, Mt St. Mary's, Alabama St

Last 4 In: Florida St, Syracuse, Massachusetts, Kentucky
First 4 Out: Dayton, Creighton, Arkansas, UNLV
Next 4 Out: Saint Joseph's, Mississippi, Nebraska, California

Bubble Watch I think it's safe to say West Virginia is in, so I removed them from the list. I think it's safe to say Maryland, Florida and UAB are off the bubble, but I kept them on the list just so you can see how far down there are.

South Alabama continues to baffle me. How they deserve to get in ahead of a team like Arizona St is beyond me. Put their two schedules head-to-head and Arizona St has 8 of the 9 best wins. Arizona St has a lot more losses but most of them are two top Pac 10 teams. Arizona has five losses tougher than South Alabama's 'best' loss (at Vandy), and South Alabama has the two worst losses between the two teams (swept by Middle Tenn St). Unfortunately, there are two numbers that stick out.

South Alabama RPI 35
Arizona State RPI 82
If they get in and Arizona St doesn't, it's only because the RPI is wrong for both teams in different directions.

Proj				RANK		SOS		NC SOS
Seed	TEAM	W	L	JCI	RPI	JCI	RPI	JCI	RPI	QW	QL	Next Game
7	Miami (FL)	21	9	30	26	46	32	278	130	28	39	3/14 Virginia Tech
8	Kent St	26	6	29	27	132	127	96	61	33	34	3/14 Miami (OH)
8	Texas A&M	22	9	31	44	53	58	271	214	29	37	3/14 Kansas St
8	Arizona	18	14	34	34	1	2	24	7	22	51	None ( 3/13 L vs Stanford)
9	BYU	26	6	32	25	141	111	152	152	65	21	3/14 San Diego St
9	Baylor	20	10	36	42	41	39	216	139	34	45	None ( 3/13 L vs Colorado)
9	Arizona St	19	12	38	82	12	71	305	299	36	47	None ( 3/13 L vs Southern California)
10	Oregon	18	13	37	56	3	22	179	155	42	42	None ( 3/13 L vs Washington St)
10	Illinois St	23	9	39	33	82	72	181	116	39	44	None ( 3/ 9 L vs Drake)
10	St. Mary's	24	6	35	37	140	139	88	30	69	23	None ( 3/ 9 L at San Diego)
10	Kansas St	19	10	40	45	42	31	171	80	46	38	3/14 Texas A&M
11	Villanova	20	12	43	51	38	43	233	168	31	62	None ( 3/13 L vs Georgetown)
11	Ohio State	19	12	41	46	24	17	28	13	51	41	3/14 Michigan St
11	Mississippi St	21	9	42	39	87	53	219	123	56	43	3/14 Alabama
11	Florida St	19	13	46	62	32	23	197	129	35	66	3/14 North Carolina
12	Syracuse	19	13	51	52	33	8	193	18	32	76	None ( 3/12 L vs Villanova)
12	Massachusetts	21	10	49	43	91	64	136	86	41	63	None ( 3/13 L vs Charlotte)
12	Kentucky	18	11	48	47	48	13	129	97	53	55	3/14 Georgia
	Dayton	21	10	52	32	92	29	155	31	40	64	None ( 3/13 L vs Xavier)
	Creighton	20	10	45	49	73	69	176	98	58	48	None ( 3/ 8 L vs Drake)
	Arkansas	20	10	53	40	84	42	199	87	50	59	3/14 Vanderbilt
	UNLV	23	7	44	28	150	78	213	52	74	36	3/14 Utah
	Saint Joseph's	20	11	58	50	80	62	138	118	37	87	3/14 Xavier
	Mississippi	21	10	56	48	104	65	274	133	45	70	None ( 3/13 L vs Georgia)
	Nebraska	19	11	55	96	66	107	281	315	63	54	3/14 Kansas
	California	16	15	59	87	5	16	283	164	49	65	None ( 3/13 L vs UCLA)
	VCU	24	7	57	55	193	159	85	88	57	61	None ( 3/ 9 L vs William & Mary)
	Oklahoma St	16	14	63	75	17	15	166	111	54	75	3/14 Texas
	South Alabama	24	6	54	35	210	125	122	67	81	40	None ( 3/10 L Middle Tenn St)
	Virginia Tech	18	12	60	59	54	52	178	142	70	58	3/14 Miami
	Georgia Tech	15	16	67	68	4	9	23	44	43	102	3/14 Duke
	Southern Illinois	17	14	64	61	40	12	11	4	52	91	None ( 3/ 7 L vs Northern Iowa)
	Temple	19	12	69	60	86	51	69	27	48	98	3/14 Charlotte
	New Mexico	24	8	62	58	173	149	309	264	76	56	None ( 3/13 L vs Utah)
	Washington	16	16	66	118	6	54	187	217	62	72	None ( 3/12 L vs California)
	Wake Forest	17	13	65	97	47	85	223	267	60	77	None ( 3/13 L vs Florida St)
	Florida	21	11	61	72	97	86	330	273	77	57	None ( 3/13 L vs Alabama)
	Texas Tech	15	15	68	69	9	4	83	26	67	73	None ( 3/13 L vs Oklahoma St)
	Wright St	21	10	70	86	129	151	183	108	59	83	None ( 3/ 7 L vs Valparaiso)
	Maryland	18	14	76	83	60	25	229	70	44	115	None ( 3/13 L vs Boston College)
	Cleveland St	19	12	75	64	95	88	105	40	55	104	None ( 3/11 L at Butler)
	Rhode Island	21	11	73	77	124	104	260	195	68	89	None ( 3/12 L vs Charlotte)
	UAB	22	10	82	54	157	92	267	162	85	74	None ( 3/13 L vs Tulsa)

A Closer Look

Here's a more detailed look at the quality wins and losses for each team on the bubble. I used the expected winning percentage of a hypothetical 45th ranked team (a team right on the bubble) for each game given the strength of the opponent and the location of the game. A really good win is a game in which the bubble team would be expected to win less than 25% of the time. A good win is any game in which the bubble team would be expected to win less than 45% of the time. A bad loss is a game that the bubble team would be expected to win 65% of the time, but didn't. And a real bad loss is a game that the bubble team would be expected to win 85% of the time, but didn't.

Miami (FL)
Really Good Wins: Duke
Good Wins: @ Mississippi St, @ Virginia Tech, @ Georgia Tech
Bad Losses: Winthrop, Florida St
Really Bad Losses: None

Kent St
Really Good Wins: None
Good Wins: @ St. Mary's, Illinois St, @ Akron
Bad Losses: @ Bowling Green, @ Toledo
Really Bad Losses: @ Detroit

Texas A&M
Really Good Wins: Texas
Good Wins: @ Baylor, @ Oklahoma St
Bad Losses: Oklahoma St, Nebraska
Really Bad Losses: None

Arizona
Really Good Wins: @ Washington St, @ Southern California
Good Wins: @ UNLV, Washington St, @ California
Bad Losses: Virginia
Really Bad Losses: None

BYU
Really Good Wins: vs Louisville
Good Wins: @ New Mexico
Bad Losses: None
Really Bad Losses: None

Baylor
Really Good Wins: @ Texas A&M
Good Wins: Notre Dame, @ Nebraska, @ Texas Tech
Bad Losses: Colorado
Really Bad Losses: None

Arizona St
Really Good Wins: @ Arizona
Good Wins: Stanford, Xavier, @ California, @ Washington, Southern California
Bad Losses: Washington, Illinois, California
Really Bad Losses: None

Oregon
Really Good Wins: @ Arizona
Good Wins: @ Kansas St, Stanford, @ California
Bad Losses: None
Really Bad Losses: vs Oakland

Illinois St
Really Good Wins: None
Good Wins: @ Creighton, @ Southern Illinois
Bad Losses: @ Eastern Michigan
Really Bad Losses: None

St. Mary's
Really Good Wins: None
Good Wins: Drake
Bad Losses: None
Really Bad Losses: None

Kansas St
Really Good Wins: @ Oklahoma, Kansas
Good Wins: None
Bad Losses: George Mason
Really Bad Losses: None

Villanova
Really Good Wins: None
Good Wins: @ Syracuse, @ Temple, Connecticut
Bad Losses: @ Rutgers, Syracuse
Really Bad Losses: None

Ohio State
Really Good Wins: None
Good Wins: Michigan St, @ Cleveland St
Bad Losses: @ Michigan, @ Iowa
Really Bad Losses: None

Mississippi St
Really Good Wins: None
Good Wins: @ Florida
Bad Losses: None
Really Bad Losses: None

Florida St
Really Good Wins: @ Miami (FL)
Good Wins: @ Florida, @ Georgia Tech
Bad Losses: vs South Florida, North Carolina St, Wake Forest
Really Bad Losses: None

Syracuse
Really Good Wins: Georgetown
Good Wins: @ Villanova, Marquette
Bad Losses: Rhode Island, Massachusetts, @ South Florida, Villanova
Really Bad Losses: None

Massachusetts
Really Good Wins: None
Good Wins: @ Syracuse, @ Dayton, @ Rhode Island
Bad Losses: Saint Joseph's
Really Bad Losses: Fordham

Kentucky
Really Good Wins: Tennessee
Good Wins: None
Bad Losses: San Diego
Really Bad Losses: Gardner Webb

Dayton
Really Good Wins: @ Louisville
Good Wins: None
Bad Losses: @ George Washington, @ La Salle, Massachusetts
Really Bad Losses: Duquesne

Creighton
Really Good Wins: None
Good Wins: @ Oral Roberts
Bad Losses: None
Really Bad Losses: @ Evansville

Arkansas
Really Good Wins: None
Good Wins: vs Baylor
Bad Losses: Appalachian St
Really Bad Losses: South Carolina

UNLV
Really Good Wins: None
Good Wins: None
Bad Losses: @ Air Force
Really Bad Losses: None

Saint Joseph's
Really Good Wins: None
Good Wins: @ Massachusetts, Xavier, @ Temple, @ Rhode Island
Bad Losses: Temple
Really Bad Losses: Holy Cross, La Salle, Saint Louis

Mississippi
Really Good Wins: None
Good Wins: Clemson
Bad Losses: Georgia, @ Auburn, @ LSU
Really Bad Losses: Auburn, South Carolina

Nebraska
Really Good Wins: @ Texas A&M
Good Wins: None
Bad Losses: Missouri, @ Colorado
Really Bad Losses: None

California
Really Good Wins: @ Washington St
Good Wins: @ Arizona St, @ Washington, Southern California
Bad Losses: Washington
Really Bad Losses: Utah

VCU
Really Good Wins: None
Good Wins: @ Akron
Bad Losses: @ Hampton
Really Bad Losses: Old Dominion, William & Mary, @ James Madison

Oklahoma St
Really Good Wins: Kansas, @ Texas A&M
Good Wins: None
Bad Losses: Illinois, @ North Texas
Really Bad Losses: None

South Alabama
Really Good Wins: None
Good Wins: @ Western Kentucky
Bad Losses: @ Middle Tenn St, @ North Texas
Really Bad Losses: Middle Tenn St

Virginia Tech
Really Good Wins: None
Good Wins: @ Maryland
Bad Losses: @ Old Dominion
Really Bad Losses: None

Georgia Tech
Really Good Wins: None
Good Wins: vs Notre Dame, @ Wake Forest
Bad Losses: Virginia, vs Winthrop, Maryland, Florida St
Really Bad Losses: UNC Greensboro

Southern Illinois
Really Good Wins: None
Good Wins: Drake
Bad Losses: Northern Iowa
Really Bad Losses: None

Temple
Really Good Wins: None
Good Wins: Xavier, @ Saint Joseph's
Bad Losses: Saint Joseph's, Villanova
Really Bad Losses: Fordham, vs Coll of Charleston

New Mexico
Really Good Wins: None
Good Wins: None
Bad Losses: San Diego St, @ TCU, Utah, @ New Mexico St
Really Bad Losses: None

Washington
Really Good Wins: UCLA
Good Wins: @ Arizona St, @ California
Bad Losses: California
Really Bad Losses: None

Wake Forest
Really Good Wins: Duke
Good Wins: @ Florida St
Bad Losses: Maryland, Georgia Tech
Really Bad Losses: None

Florida
Really Good Wins: None
Good Wins: None
Bad Losses: Alabama, Florida St, Mississippi St
Really Bad Losses: LSU

Texas Tech
Really Good Wins: Texas
Good Wins: Gonzaga
Bad Losses: Alabama, Florida St, Mississippi St
Really Bad Losses: None

Wright St
Really Good Wins: None
Good Wins: Butler, @ Cleveland St
Bad Losses: Valparaiso, Bradley, Cleveland St, @ UW Milwaukee, Valparaiso, @ Marist
Really Bad Losses: None

Maryland
Really Good Wins: @ North Carolina
Good Wins: @ Wake Forest, @ Georgia Tech, @ Charlotte
Bad Losses: Ohio, Boston College, Virginia Tech, vs Missouri
Really Bad Losses: American, Boston College

Cleveland St
Really Good Wins: None
Good Wins: Butler, @ Wright St
Bad Losses: vs Georgia So, @ Loyola (Chicago), Wright St, @ UW Milwaukee
Really Bad Losses: CS Northridge

Rhode Island
Really Good Wins: None
Good Wins: @ Syracuse
Bad Losses: Charlotte, @ George Washington, Saint Joseph's, Massachusetts
Really Bad Losses: None

UAB
Really Good Wins: None
Good Wins: None
Bad Losses: vs Georgia So, @ Wichita St, Tulsa, @ Marshall, @ South Florida, @ Southern Miss
Really Bad Losses: None

Bracket Update - March 12th

noreply@blogger.com (Jim Colton) — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 19:41:00 +0000

There was very little change after Monday night's games -- Butler and Western Kentucky won as expected. Therefore, I didn't update the brackets until we have some meaningful games on Tuesday completed. The biggie is Syracuse vs Villanova, with the loser likely staying home.

I updated my brackets with the Villanova win, and surprisingly Syracuse is still in by the skin of its teeth. This is likely to change as we go further on into the week. Most have South Alabama in, while I don't. UNLV may get in on the strength of its inflated RPI numbers, plus it has the opportunity to pad a few more wins in the Mountain West tourney. In the end, I think somebody will pass Syracuse for one of the last spots. Villanova looks safe even if they lose to Georgetown tomorrow. Ohio State shouldn't slide behind Syracuse in the pecking order even if they lose to Michigan State.

Dayton is doing everything it can to play it outself out of a tourney bid, but they did manage to hold on against St Louis in overtime. They may have to beat Xavier tomorrow to have any chance. They do have inflated RPI numbers on their side. Assuming Mississippi beats Georgia tomorrow, we may have another one of those 'loser stays home' match-ups with Kentucky in the quarterfinals.

1: North Carolina, Memphis, UCLA, Tennessee
2: Duke, Texas, Kansas, Georgetown
3: Wisconsin, Stanford, Drake, Washington St
4: Louisville, Xavier, Butler, Connecticut
5: Notre Dame, Indiana, Michigan St, Southern California
6: Marquette, Purdue, Vanderbilt, Clemson
7: Pittsburgh, Gonzaga, Oklahoma, Kent St
8: Arizona, Texas A&M, Miami (FL), Baylor
9: West Virginia, BYU, Arizona St, Oregon
10: Davidson, Illinois St, St. Mary's, Villanova
11: Kansas St, Ohio State, Mississippi St, Massachusetts
12: Syracuse, Mississippi, Arkansas, Western Kentucky
13: Stephen F. Austin, Oral Roberts, Cornell, UC Santa Barbara
14: George Mason, Siena, San Diego, Belmont
15: UMBC, Utah St, Winthrop, Portland St
16: American, Austin Peay, Morgan St, Sacred Heart, Alabama St

Last 4 In: Massachusetts, Syracuse, Mississippi, Arkansas
First 4 Out: Dayton, South Alabama, Kentucky, Florida St
Next 4 Out: Creighton, UNLV, VCU, Saint Joseph's

Bubble Teams

Proj				RANK		SOS		NC SOS
Seed	TEAM	W	L	JCI	RPI	JCI	RPI	JCI	RPI	QW	QL	Next Game
7	Kent St	25	6	28	28	127	28	97	64	34	34	3/13 Toledo/Bowling Green
8	Arizona	17	13	35	29	1	29	26	6	21	52	3/12 Oregon St
8	Texas A&M	21	9	31	30	48	30	274	218	27	39	3/13 Iowa St
8	Miami (FL)	20	9	34	31	46	31	275	133	30	44	3/13 North Carolina St
8	Baylor	20	9	29	32	39	32	230	150	32	33	3/13 Colorado
9	West Virginia	21	9	32	33	54	33	237	134	45	27	3/12 Providence
9	BYU	25	6	30	34	135	34	144	145	65	23	3/13 Colorado St/Wyoming
9	Arizona St	19	11	37	35	17	35	307	305	33	47	3/13 Southern Cal
9	Oregon	18	12	38	36	4	36	185	160	39	42	3/13 Washington St
10	Illinois St	23	9	39	38	83	38	180	115	35	46	None
10	St. Mary's	24	6	36	39	143	39	94	30	68	24	None
10	Villanova	20	11	44	40	47	40	234	167	29	65	3/13 Georgetown
11	Kansas St	19	10	40	41	43	41	166	77	46	41	3/14 Texas A&M/Iowa St
11	Ohio State	19	12	41	42	22	42	25	13	48	45	3/14 Michigan St
11	Mississippi St	21	9	42	43	84	43	221	131	52	43	3/14 Alabama/Florida
11	Massachusetts	21	9	45	44	92	44	138	83	36	58	3/13 Charlotte/Rhode Island
12	Syracuse	19	13	52	45	33	45	189	17	31	78	None
12	Mississippi	21	9	46	46	101	46	268	121	41	60	3/13 Georgia
12	Arkansas	20	10	49	47	80	47	168	84	43	63	3/14 Auburn/Vanderbilt
	Dayton	21	9	50	48	104	48	160	33	38	66	3/13 Xavier
	South Alabama	24	5	43	49	208	49	123	72	82	28	None
	Kentucky	18	11	51	50	49	50	133	92	49	57	3/14 Georgia/Mississippi
	Florida St	18	13	54	51	27	51	187	123	40	70	3/13 Wake Forest
	Creighton	20	10	48	52	75	52	183	101	62	50	None
	UNLV	22	7	47	53	147	53	217	54	74	38	3/13 TCU
	VCU	24	7	58	54	190	54	78	78	55	62	None
	Saint Joseph's	18	11	61	55	72	55	134	108	37	89	3/12 Fordham
	New Mexico	24	7	57	56	179	56	310	264	76	48	3/13 Utah
	Virginia Tech	18	12	59	57	51	57	167	126	69	59	3/14 Miami/NC State
	Florida	21	10	56	58	95	58	329	273	75	49	3/13 Alabama
	Nebraska	18	11	60	60	65	60	277	312	70	56	3/13 Missouri
	Maryland	18	13	68	62	59	62	229	68	42	99	3/13 Boston College
	Wake Forest	17	12	62	63	53	63	225	268	57	72	3/13 Florida St
	Washington	16	15	64	64	6	64	209	226	59	68	3/12 California
	Texas Tech	15	14	63	65	8	65	81	27	66	67	3/13 Oklahoma St
	Southern Illinois	17	14	66	66	42	66	14	5	51	103	None
	California	15	14	65	67	9	67	293	183	58	69	3/12 Washington
	Oklahoma St	15	14	69	68	14	68	174	122	64	82	3/13 Texas Tech
	Temple	18	12	70	69	82	69	65	26	50	106	3/13 LaSalle/Duquesne
	Georgia Tech	14	16	74	70	3	70	27	48	44	112	3/13 Virginia
	Rhode Island	21	10	67	71	123	71	260	192	67	77	3/12 Charlotte
	Wright St	21	10	71	72	129	72	193	109	61	87	None
	Cleveland St	19	12	77	73	96	73	110	45	53	111	None
	UAB	22	9	72	74	153	74	252	151	81	64	3/13 Tulsa/E Carolina

Bracket Update - March 11th

noreply@blogger.com (Jim Colton) — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 15:59:00 +0000

Here is my latest bracket projections with games as of Monday March 10th. Again, this is not what I think the brackets will look like (trying to guess what the Selection Committee WILL do), it's simply what I think they SHOULD do if they practice what they preach: value body-of-work with slight extra weight for recent performance and quality wins.

1: North Carolina, Memphis, UCLA, Tennessee
2: Duke, Texas, Kansas, Georgetown
3: Wisconsin, Stanford, Drake, Washington St
4: Louisville, Xavier, Butler, Connecticut
5: Notre Dame, Indiana, Michigan St, Southern California
6: Marquette, Purdue, Vanderbilt, Clemson
7: Pittsburgh, Gonzaga, Oklahoma, Kent St
8: Arizona, Texas A&M, Miami (FL), Baylor
9: West Virginia, BYU, Arizona St, Oregon
10: Davidson, Illinois St, St. Mary's, Kansas St
11: Syracuse, Ohio State, Massachusetts, Mississippi St
12: Villanova, Mississippi, Arkansas, Stephen F. Austin
13: Western Kentucky, Cornell, Oral Roberts, UC Santa Barbara
14: George Mason, Siena, Belmont, San Diego
15: UMBC, Utah St, Winthrop, Portland St
16: American, Austin Peay, Morgan St, Sacred Heart, Alabama St

Last 4 In: Mississippi St, Villanova, Mississippi, Arkansas
First 4 Out: South Alabama, Florida St, Kentucky, Creighton
Next 4 Out: Dayton, UNLV, VCU, Saint Joseph's
A few observations:

- Obviously, the San Diego win over Gonzaga took an at-large bid away from the bubble teams, as Gonzaga and St. Mary's are already safely in. Not a bad deal for the West Coast conference, three bids for the 15th best conference.

- VCU and potentially South Alabama may have given 1-2 bids back to the field. I think VCU is definitely out. South Alabama still has a chance at an at-large bid. They are likely helped by inflated RPI numbers (see Bubble Teams below)

- Right now, I have Syracuse and Villanova in, but they play each other in the 8/9 game of the Big East tournament. It's likely that the loser of the game will get a parting gift of an NIT bid. It seems unlikely that the Big East will ever get more than 8 bids for this reason.

- I have Illinois St in comfortably, but that 30-point thrashing by Drake can't help their cause. The Committee is supposed to look at wins and losses as opposed to margin of victory, but it's never good to have a blowout loss as the last thing the Committee sees of you. I think it says more about the quality of Drake than anything else, although I highly doubt they get the '3' seed their resume deserves.

Bubble Teams

I put up some detailed info on the remaining bubble teams, rank ordered on how I have them sorted on my S-Curve. I used ESPN's bubble watch to guide who was considered a lock and who was still on the bubble (the only exceptions to the ESPN lock were BYU and Missippi St, who I still have as bubble teams). I realize that teams like Nebraska, Wake Forest, Washington, SIU, Texas Tech, Cal, Oklahoma St, Georgia Tech and down to Cleveland St are not even in the running for an at-large bid, but I included them for comparison as they are all currently more worthy than UAB who is still considered a bubble team (ESPN also had Houston listed and they were even further down the list). Florida St and Creighton are two other teams not listed as bubble teams by ESPN, but I feel they should at least be in the conversation. Florida State seems to be in this situation every year. On the lower end of the bubble with some quality wins but overall deflated RPI numbers, a position that you don't really want to be in.

Proj				RANK		SOS		NC SOS
Seed	TEAM	W	L	JCI	RPI	JCI	RPI	JCI	RPI	QW	QL	Next Game
7	Kent St	25	6	28	27	127	117	95	63	32	34	3/13 Toledo/Bowling Green
8	Arizona	17	13	35	30	1	2	25	6	21	53	3/12 Oregon St
8	Texas A&M	21	9	32	47	48	56	275	219	27	39	3/13 Iowa St
8	Miami (FL)	20	9	34	29	46	31	276	134	29	44	3/13 North Carolina St
8	Baylor	20	9	30	40	39	33	231	147	31	33	3/13 Colorado
9	West Virginia	21	9	31	38	54	55	238	133	44	27	3/12 Providence
9	BYU	25	6	29	21	136	95	144	141	64	23	3/13 Colorado St/Wyoming
9	Arizona St	19	11	37	75	18	76	307	305	33	48	3/13 Southern Cal
9	Oregon	18	12	38	52	4	30	185	159	38	41	3/13 Washington St
10	Illinois St	23	9	39	34	83	69	178	114	35	46	None
10	St. Mary's	24	6	36	39	143	137	92	29	68	24	None
10	Kansas St	19	10	40	44	43	27	165	77	46	42	3/14 Texas A&M/Iowa St
11	Syracuse	19	12	46	45	33	7	184	18	30	69	3/12 Villanova
11	Ohio State	19	12	41	48	20	21	24	12	47	45	3/14 Michigan St
11	Massachusetts	21	9	44	41	90	66	133	82	36	58	3/13 Charlotte/Rhode Island
11	Mississippi St	21	9	42	37	84	51	219	128	52	43	3/14 Alabama/Florida
12	Villanova	19	11	45	56	47	57	233	169	34	65	3/12 Syracuse
12	Mississippi	21	9	47	43	100	60	268	120	40	60	3/13 Georgia
12	Arkansas	20	10	50	42	80	40	170	86	42	63	3/14 Auburn/Vanderbilt
	South Alabama	24	5	43	25	209	127	124	74	82	28	None
	Florida St	18	13	53	63	27	20	187	121	39	71	3/13 Wake Forest
	Kentucky	18	11	51	50	49	12	136	92	50	57	3/14 Georgia/Mississippi
	Creighton	20	10	49	51	76	72	190	102	62	52	None
	Dayton	20	9	52	33	103	41	161	34	43	66	3/12 Saint Louis
	UNLV	22	7	48	28	146	70	217	55	74	38	3/13 TCU
	VCU	24	7	58	53	189	152	76	78	55	62	None
	Saint Joseph's	18	11	61	55	73	58	134	108	37	89	3/12 Fordham
	New Mexico	24	7	57	54	178	150	310	263	77	49	3/13 Utah
	Virginia Tech	18	12	59	57	51	45	164	129	69	59	3/14 Miami/NC State
	Florida	21	10	56	65	95	85	329	273	75	50	3/13 Alabama
	Nebraska	18	11	60	97	66	110	281	312	70	56	3/13 Missouri
	Maryland	18	13	68	69	58	15	229	69	41	97	3/13 Boston College
	Wake Forest	17	12	62	87	53	84	226	268	57	72	3/13 Florida St
	Washington	16	15	63	109	6	50	204	223	61	68	3/12 California
13	Western Kentucky	23	6	54	49	197	151	99	99	112	26	3/11 Middle Tenn St
	Southern Illinois	17	14	66	60	41	13	14	4	51	98	None
	Texas Tech	15	14	64	61	8	3	84	26	67	67	3/13 Oklahoma St
	California	15	14	65	93	9	34	293	182	59	70	3/12 Washington
	Oklahoma St	15	14	69	83	15	16	177	124	65	81	3/13 Texas Tech
	Temple	18	12	71	58	82	43	67	27	49	106	3/13 LaSalle/Duquesne
	Georgia Tech	14	16	74	73	3	8	27	48	45	111	3/13 Virginia
	Wright St	21	10	70	84	128	149	191	109	58	86	None
	Rhode Island	21	10	67	66	122	104	257	193	66	78	3/12 Charlotte
	Cleveland St	19	11	76	71	108	97	111	45	53	107	3/11 Butler
	UAB	22	9	72	46	153	93	249	153	81	64	3/13 Tulsa/E Carolina

Most of the table should be pretty self-explanatory. The QW and QL numbers stand for Quality Wins and Quality Losses. It simply a summation of the difficulty of a team's wins and losses over the entire season. I'd argue that a team that is inferior to another in both QW & QL probably doesn't have a case for having a better profile than another.

For each bubble team, I show the RPI based rankings and SOS numbers side-by-side with my corresponding Colton Index figures. Remember, most (if not all) of the differences between the two are caused by nothing more than the wacky nuances of the RPI. Of course, the RPI are the numbers that the Committee has in front of them, and even if they don't play a large role in the decision-making process the Committee has to take them at face value (that they represent what they are meant to represent). So as a bubble team you much rather have inflated RPI numbers than the opposite.

The teams most likely to gain from inflated RPI numbers are: South Alabama (25 RPI vs 43), Dayton (33 vs 52), UNLV (28 vs 48), BYU (29 vs 21), Arkansas (50 vs 42), Temple (58 vs 71) and UAB (46 vs 72). Those are large difference right in the sweet spot of teams getting serious consideration. Big SOS differences include BYU (95 RPI SOS vs 136), UMass (60 vs 99), Missippi St (51 vs 84), Ole Miss (60 vs 100), Arkansas (40 vs 80), South Alabama (127 vs 209), Syracuse (7 vs 33), Dayton (41 vs 103), Maryland (15 vs 58), Temple (43 vs 82) and UAB (93 vs 153). If you followed any of my videos or blog posts in the past, you know this is driven primarily by the number (or lack of) 'bottom-feeders', sub-250 RPI opponents, a team has on its schedule, but it may also be influenced because the home/road adjustments are not accounted for in the RPI SOS measure.

The team most likely to be hurt by deflated RPI numbers is Arizona State, with a RPI of 75 vs my measure of 37. They have a RPI SOS of 76 where I have it at 18, actually tougher than a slew of bubble teams with better RPI SOS numbers such as Syracuse, Kentucky and Maryland. It's a travesty that Arizona St's schedule looks easier than Dayton's, Missippi's and UNLV's, for example. I agree with the RPI in that their non-conference schedule is extremely weak, but that NC SOS drags down their overall numbers to the point that they are barely in the conversation as a bubble team. See what the seemingly benign decision of playing teams like Florida Gulf Coast (RPI 291, non DI last year), Coppin State (266, 246 last year), Idaho (302, 305 RPI last year), and St Francis (PA) (313, RPI 321 last year) can do to your tourney chances? I currently have the Sun Devil's as a 9 seed although I'm willing to bet they don't get in. Their QW/QL profile is similar to illinois St, Kansas St, Ohio State and is superior to teams such as UMass, Missippi St, Syracuse, Villanova, Ole Miss, Arkansas, Kentucky and Maryland.

Other teams that could be hurt by deflated RPI numbers are Texas A&M (47 RPI vs 32), Baylor (40 vs 30), Oregon (52 vs 38), Villanova (56 vs 47), Florida St (63 vs 53) and Florida (65 vs 56). Again, these are real differences right in the sweet spot of teams under consideration. Besides Arizona St, Oregon is the other bubble team with a significantly deflated RPI number (30 RPI vs 4).

I plan to update my brackets on a daily basis up until Selection Sunday. I will try to update this list of bubble teams as well.

Updated Brackets - Feb 22nd

noreply@blogger.com (Jim Colton) — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 16:51:00 +0000

Here is my latest bracket projections, with games as of Thursday Feb 21st. If you've seen these before, you know the drill. It's not how I think the brackets WILL look like, it's only how I think the brackets SHOULD look like if the NCAA Tournament Committee actually practices what it preaches.

1: Memphis, North Carolina, Tennessee, UCLA
2: Duke, Kansas, Texas, Wisconsin
3: Connecticut, Washington St, Stanford, Georgetown
4: Butler, Xavier, Indiana, Drake
5: Notre Dame, Michigan St, Marquette, Louisville
6: Purdue, St. Mary's, Vanderbilt, Southern California
7: Pittsburgh, Gonzaga, Arizona, Texas A&M
8: Clemson, Oklahoma, Miami (FL), BYU
9: Kent St, Kansas St, Baylor, Arizona St
10: Oregon, West Virginia, Ohio State, Massachusetts
11: Arkansas, Davidson, California, Stephen F. Austin
12: Rhode Island, Florida, Wake Forest, Mississippi
13: South Alabama, VCU, Oral Roberts, CS Northridge
14: Boise St, Cornell, UMBC, Winthrop
15: Siena, Wagner, Belmont, Portland St
16: American, Lamar, Morgan St, Austin Peay, Alabama St

Last 4 In: Rhode Island, Florida, Wake Forest, Mississippi
First 4 Out: Wright St, Syracuse, UNLV, Illinois St
Next 4 Out: Dayton, Villanova, North Carolina St, Houston

This is probably not a good idea to talk about prior to the Tennessee-Memphis game, but I wanted to look more closely at scheduling and how the RPI SOS numbers are out of whack. Let's compare three teams who we can safely assume have figured out how to beat the system (not passing judgment, I wonder why more programs haven't caught on): Tennessee, Syracuse and Arizona versus one team that is hurting its tourney profile by its non-conference schedule: Washington State.

First, let's look at the RPI SOS and NC SOS of the four teams in question.

Arizona - RPI SOS = 1; NC SOS = 5
Tennessee - RPI SOS = 2; NC SOS = 7
Syracuse - RPI SOS = 13; NC SOS = 19
Washington St - RPI SOS = 58; NC SOS = 227

I'm not going to defend Washington's non-conference schedule, they did play some cupcakes. However, I will contend that despite the numbers above suggesting otherwise, to date:

1. Washington State has played a tougher schedule than both Syracuse and Tennessee.

2. Washington State's cupcake non-conference schedule was not much easier than Syracuse's

If you've taken the time to watch my presentations, you know that the RPI SOS measure is flawed in to two very significant ways. First, the SOS measure is essentially just the average RPI of a team's opponents. So a team playing the 1st, 2nd and 330th ranked team will have the same SOS schedule as a team playing the 110th,111th, and 112th ranked teams, despite the fact that a quality team would likely go 1-2 in the first scenario and 3-0 in the second scenario. That's a biggie. This is why we have 'the bottom feeder effect' which creates the greatest opportunity for programs to game the system. The second isn't quite as big, but it can skew the results. Home vs. road is not accounted for in the RPI SOS number. The wacky +/-40% adjustments that the NCAA put into practice go into the win-loss component and not either of the two SOS components (while also have the extra benefit of doing more harm than good.)

I compute SOS by recognizing that difficulty is not a linear function and difficulty should account for the location of the game. Home-court advantage can be easily quantified (and is not linear either. It matters most when teams are close together and not much at all when teams are far apart). To me (and anyone with a brain), playing a stronger (or harder) schedule should mean playing games with a higher chance of losing. I calculate a team's SOS by estimating what the expected winning percentage would be for a hypothetical 45th-ranked team given a team's schedule, accounting for strength of schedule and location of the game. A team playing a schedule where the 45th-ranked team would be expected to win 70% of the time would be deemed easier than a team playing a schedule where the 45th-ranked team would be expected to win 60% of the time. Simple enough.

So, let's look at those 4 teams again.

Overall Expected Win Pct and SOS
Arizona (RPI SOS 1)- JCI SOS .5151 (1st)
Tennessee (RPI SOS 2) - JCI SOS .6386 (37th)
Syracuse (RPI SOS 13) - JCI SOS .6547 (53rd)
Washington St (RPI SOS 58) - JCI SOS .6108 (17th)

Non-Conf Expected Win Pct and SOS
Arizona (RPI SOS 5)- JCI SOS .6065 (21st)
Tennessee (RPI SOS 7) - JCI SOS .6370 (39th)
Syracuse (RPI SOS 19) - JCI SOS .7805 (203rd)
Washington St (RPI SOS 227) - JCI SOS .8025 (241st)

A few things jump out of the page. First, how can Washington State's RPI SOS be so much worse than Tennessee's despite playing a tougher schedule. And second, how can Syracuse's NC RPI SOS look so much better than Washington State when it's really not that much better. Let's look at each in more detail.

Tennessee is benefitting from the bottom feeder effect. They've only played one pure cupcake (and RPI killer), Prairie View A&M at home. Both Tennessee and Washington State played North Carolina A&T at home this season. The difference is Tennessee only played one non-conference game easier than that, while Washington State played five.

The cupcakes weigh down Washington State's overall numbers. If you split each team's schedule between the toughest 15 games and the rest, you'll see a distinct difference between the Vols and the Cougars.

Expected Win%, Toughest 15 games
Tennessee 7.10 - 7.90, 47.35%
Washington St 5.30 - 9.70, 35.30%

Expected Win%, Remaining Games
Tennessee 8.86 - 1.14, 88.64%%
Washington St 10.59 - 0.41, 96.23%

Wahington State is risking 1.8 more wins on the tough part of the schedule in exchange for risking 0.8 less wins on the easy portion of their schedule, and this difference causes Tennessee to have a RPI SOS of 2 and Washington State to have a RPI SOS of 58.

With respect to the non-conference portion of the schedule, Washington State is hurt relative to Syracuse by both the bottom-feeder effect and the lack of recognition for the location of the game. Washington State's three toughest non-conference games were @Gonzaga, @Baylor and @Boise State. Syracuse only played one road non-conference game and its three toughest were neutral games vs Ohio State, vs Washington and on the road against Virginia. If you stack the two teams side-by-side, Washington State played three of the four non-conference games between the two teams, but this is more than offset by the fact they played eight of the nine easiest non-conference games. That's how you explain the difference between NC RPI SOS of 19 vs 227.

And with respect to Arizona, I can't really disagree with their #1 overall SOS. They have played the toughest schedule to date. But like I showed in part three of my presentation, having that SOS creates a win-win situation for them. Do well and you are rewarded with a high seed. Don't do quite as well (like this year at 15-10) and you're still likely to make the tournament. I think it really says something when Arizona risked about 2 1/2 more games with its tougher schedule relative to Washington State, yet Washington State needs to go 21-5 to have the essentially the same RPI as Arizona at 15-10.

So maybe the bigger question is this...what is Washington State thinking? They did the same thing last year, playing a cupcake non-conference that dragged their RPI SOS down to 88 (versus my measure of 43) and overall RPI to 25 (versus 13). Why go into Selection Sunday with deflated numbers when it would be just as easy to go into Selection Sunday with more accurate (or even inflated numbers). It didn't hurt them last year as they did get a 3 seed, but it's not a good long-run strategy. Why haven't more programs caught on to this? Tournament appearances, Final Fours and National Championships are obviously goals for each of these schools, so why not best position yourself to accomplish these goals? Improved RPI and SOS numbers can never hurt you, they can only help you. If the difference between making the tourney and not making the tourney or landing a 6 seed instead of a 7 seed means playing the 200th-ranked RPI team at home instead of the 300th-ranked RPI team, I think you have to risk that one-thousandth of a win.

Bracket Projections - Jan 31

noreply@blogger.com (Jim Colton) — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 17:40:00 +0000

Here's my latest bracket projections, based on the up-to-date Colton Index with extra weight for quality wins and performance over the last 10 games.

1: Memphis, North Carolina, Kansas, Washington St
2: Duke, UCLA, Tennessee, Georgetown
3: Drake, Michigan St, Butler, Xavier
4: Connecticut, Indiana, Wisconsin, Pittsburgh
5: Texas, Baylor, Oklahoma, Arizona
6: Marquette, Mississippi, Southern California, Stanford
7: Gonzaga, Notre Dame, St. Mary's, Ohio State
8: Kansas St, Vanderbilt, Dayton, Florida
9: Texas A&M, Rhode Island, Kent St, Clemson
10: Massachusetts, South Alabama, Purdue, Miami (FL)
11: North Carolina St, Louisville, Saint Joseph's, BYU
12: Arkansas, West Virginia, Oregon, UNLV
13: Davidson, CS Northridge, VCU, Oral Roberts
14: UNC Asheville, Siena, Utah St, Wagner
15: Northern Arizona, UMBC, Hampton, Lafayette
16: Cornell, Austin Peay, Lamar, Jacksonville, Alabama St

Last 4 In: BYU, Arkansas, West Virginia, Oregon
First 4 Out: Seton Hall, Arizona St, Creighton, Stephen F. Austin
Next 4 Out: Villanova, Illinois St, Syracuse, Providence
If you look at the top 5 most inflated RPI's, you'll see some familiar faces on the list. Syracuse, Arizona and Tennessee have it figured out. Remember Bruce Pearl's shock at getting a 2 seed two years ago? The inflated RPI numbers helped his case tremendously. Bracketologists are considering Tennessee for a one seed this year, certainly the RPI of 1 and SOS of 2 has to play some role. I'm not bashing Arizona, Syracuse or Tennessee...I just wonder why more programs haven't figured this out. Better seeds = better draws = better chance of making the Final Four. A better RPI can only help you get a better seed.

Inflated RPI's
1: Tennessee (RPI:1,Colton:9)
2: Arizona (8,25)
3: George Mason (49,78)
4: Massachusetts (21,38)
5: Syracuse (39,56)

Bracket Projections - Jan 16

noreply@blogger.com (Jim Colton) — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 19:58:00 +0000

The Colton Index is up-to-date through games on Tuesday January 15th, and here's my latest bracket projections. Again, this is not who I think will make the tourney, but who I think should make the tourney if the season ended today, based on body-of-work with extra weight for performance over the last 10 games and quality wins.

1: North Carolina, Kansas, Memphis, Washington St
2: UCLA, Tennessee, Pittsburgh, Duke
3: Mississippi, Dayton, Wisconsin, Georgetown
4: Texas, Marquette, Drake, Michigan St
5: Rhode Island, Butler, Texas A&M, Indiana
6: St. Mary's, Xavier, Vanderbilt, Clemson
7: Gonzaga, Ohio State, Baylor, Duquesne
8: Oregon, CS Northridge, Arizona, Kent St
9: Miami-Florida, Arkansas, Stanford, West Virginia
10: Oklahoma, Florida, Connecticut, Illinois St
11: Arizona St, Creighton, Notre Dame, Villanova
12: Florida St, South Alabama, Southern California, Cleveland St
13: San Diego St, Davidson, Oral Roberts, Niagara
14: UNC Asheville, Brown, Hampton, Utah St
15: Wagner, Northern Arizona, Austin Peay, Delaware
16: Lafayette, Jacksonville, McNeese St, Hartford, Texas Southern

Last 4 In: Notre Dame, Villanova, Florida St, Southern California
First 4 Out: Minnesota, Stephen F. Austin, Massachusetts, Providence
Next 4 Out: California, Boston College, Sam Houston, Syracuse

ARIZONA AT IT AGAIN
If you've followed the Colton Index in the past, you know that I believe Arizona has figured out how to beat the system through smart scheduling. They generally avoid the bottom feeders in the non-conference, leading to consistently inflated overall RPI numbers. Two years ago, they made the tourney because of their inflated numbers, not because their performance warranted it. (Part 3 of my presentations show how through smart scheduling, Arizona created a win-win situation for itself. Perform well and it's easy to justify a top seed. Underperform and you still get in.)

So far in 2007, it looks like Arizona is up to its old tricks again, with an RPI of 10 despite a record of 10-5. Since the RPI is 75% SOS, it's more who you play instead of how well you do. Better yet, it's more who you don't play instead of how well you do. Arizona's non-conference schedule has only one bottom feeder in it, UMKC (257 RPI last year). Most of the remaining opponents are right in that 'sweet spot' of 50-150 range, games where Arizona has a good chance of winning without killing their SOS. Plus, because of changes to how the NCAA defines home/road games, their game against Illinois at the United Center is now considered a road game (40% bonus), when previously it would've been considered neutral (like last year's game against Illinois in Phoenix).

Right now, I have Arizona in the tourney as an 8 seed, but that's based on a Colton Index of 33 and SOS of 15. If their RPI of 10 and SOS of 1 play any role in the Committee's decision making, you'll likely see a much higher seed.

Colton Index College Basketball Ratings 2007-08

noreply@blogger.com (Jim Colton) — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 03:54:00 +0000

The first Colton Index ratings for the 2007-08 are finally up. Don't put too much weight into the early results...there are a lot of 0 and 1 loss teams at the top. That will change now that conference play is underway. Now if I could do something about that 115th ranking for my beloved Illini...

http://www.coltonindex.com/index.html

Top College Basketball Programs Over the Last 10 Years (Updated)

noreply@blogger.com (Jim Colton) — Tue, 03 Apr 2007 21:42:00 +0000

First of all, congratulations to the Florida Gators on defending their title. Despite hearing Billy Packer go on and on about how tired the Buckeyes were (starting about 3 minutes into the game and lasting until the final buzzer), I think it just boils down the fact that the Gators were simply the better team. Why can't we just leave it at that? Although the game wasn't very compelling, I was glad to see (as were many NBA scouts) Greg Oden show that he does in fact have a pulse. Too bad the his teammates were throwing up bricks.

With the 2006-07 season in the books, I've updated my rankings of the top programs over the last 10 years using the Colton Index. Here are the results with the 2006-07 season included. The NCAA tourney results are double-weighted.

Interestingly, most of the top teams from the previous list had down years in 2006-07. Of the teams previously in the top 20, only Florida, Wisconsin and UCLA performed better in 2006-07 than their previous 10-year level (North Carolina and Kansas came close). Other teams moved up because their 06-07 season was better than the 96-97 season that was being cycled out (see Michigan State, Gonzaga).

For the complete year-by-year list, check out: http://www.coltonindex.com/jci_all_10.html

Rk	PREV	TEAM	W	L	JCI	SOS	SOS
1	1	Duke	300	53	4.26	.5995	3
2	2	Kentucky	261	83	3.54	.5827	1
3	3	Connecticut	263	78	3.45	.6371	20
4	4	Kansas	265	72	3.23	.6542	30
5	8	Michigan St	242	93	3.21	.6016	4
6	5	Arizona	248	82	3.19	.6264	13
7	6	North Carolina	239	101	3.18	.5832	2
8	7	Illinois	249	90	3.12	.6237	12
9	15	Florida	248	86	3.08	.6325	18
10	10	Maryland	233	99	3.06	.6072	5
11	9	Stanford	234	80	2.98	.6600	35
12	11	Syracuse	247	92	2.78	.6663	40
13	17	Wisconsin	215	109	2.63	.6234	10
14	22	Gonzaga	258	69	2.58	.7582	85
15	16	Texas	229	103	2.57	.6555	31
16	18	Oklahoma St	226	94	2.52	.6824	59
17	14	Oklahoma	232	91	2.51	.6864	61
18	19	UCLA	210	111	2.49	.6286	16
19	12	Cincinnati	236	89	2.47	.7005	65
20	13	Wake Forest	200	121	2.41	.6170	8
21	31	Ohio State	213	110	2.38	.6525	29
22	20	Indiana	198	122	2.38	.6076	6
23	23	Pittsburgh	216	102	2.37	.6680	43
24	29	Tennessee	194	114	2.27	.6401	21
25	25	Villanova	194	123	2.12	.6471	23
26	24	North Carolina St	194	133	2.10	.6265	14
27	32	Alabama	195	123	2.05	.6522	27
28	43	Memphis	223	106	2.04	.7341	77
29	27	Louisville	200	120	2.03	.6726	48
30	28	Xavier	230	94	2.01	.7484	82
31	26	Iowa	191	127	2.01	.6492	24
32	34	Notre Dame	190	122	1.98	.6589	33

The RPI vs The Colton Index, Pt 3 (Inside the Numbers)

noreply@blogger.com (Jim Colton) — Wed, 14 Mar 2007 14:47:00 +0000

Click to Play
Download PDF Version

Click to play Part One
Click to play Part Two

A Method to This (March) Madness? Dissecting the 2007 NCAA Brackets

noreply@blogger.com (Jim Colton) — Tue, 13 Mar 2007 18:13:00 +0000

It's two days after the Selection Sunday. For bracketologists (and quasi-bracketologists like me, according to Washington Post writer Eric Prisbell), it's the calm after the storm. And in a few days, the tournament will start and nearly everyone will forget about who got hosed in the selection and seeding process. And rightfully so...the brackets are a distant second to the actual tournament. Unless, of course, your team was directly impacted, in which case you can stew about it while watching your team compete for the NIT (or as I like to call it, the Tommy Amaker Invitational).

For the second year in a row, my projections on The Bracket Project performed the worst of the 30+ bracket projections compiled. However, this is nothing for me to be ashamed of. I fully expected to be the worst. Because I look at it differently and base my projections on where I think the teams SHOULD be seeded, instead of trying to predict where the Committee WILL seed them, and more importantly because my brackets are firmly rooted in logic, clarity and consistency, right off the bat you know it's not going to do very well. Recall, I base my seeds on the following three criteria applied consistently across the board:

1. Body or work (Colton Index) - resume of wins and losses for the entire season
2. Quality Wins - summing up all of a teams wins based on degree of difficulty
3. Performance over last 10 - did team play above or below their body of work rating over the last 10

Two interesting points about my projections. First, I was the only one out of 30 that correctly picked Syracuse to not make the field (maybe the Committee read my recent blog post!) and was one of only a few that had Arkansas in the field. Also, overall I only did slightly worse than the king of Bracketology, Joe Lunardi at ESPN. Pretty amazing considering I spent about 15 minutes a day just updating the numbers and poor ol' Joe probably spent 15 HOURS a day pouring over the numbers. Lunardi pretty much invented the 'science' of bracketology (soon to be a celebrity religion), but he can't be having too many more years like this one before ESPN is telling him to stick to his day job (Assistant VP of marketing communications at St. Joseph's University).

The key thing to note is that bracketology in general is quickly becoming a joke. How does one predict what a group of 10 guys are going to decide to do, especially when there's a different set of guys every year? Their criteria could be strictly subjective or strictly objective, and oh by the way, that criteria can change from team to team. Good luck!

Before 2004, I believe the brackets were much easier to predict. But two factors have changed all of that: the New (and unimproved) RPI and Craig Littlepage. With the New (and unimproved...do I need to keep saying it?) RPI, the numbers are skewing the profiles of teams even more than before, and it's impossible for an outsider to know for which teams the Committee will be able to 'see through' the numbers and for which teams they will rely on the numbers. Depending on the path, the results will be drastically different. Related to the New (you know by now) RPI, Craig Littlepage and Co. turned the whole college basketball world upside down last year with some of the most puzzling brackets of all time. Nobody could make any sense of it (I tried here and here). I don't really blame Littlepage...I blame the NCAA for providing him with bad information. But coming into this year, no really knew what to expect.

I think the general consensus is that Gary Walters and Co. did an okay job (it is definitely a thankless job). Anything would've been an improvement over last season. Not too many people had beef with the teams selected, but there are some head scratchers as it relates to the seeding. The nice thing about my brackets (and the primary reason that I even bother posting them) is that we can evaluate where the Committee deviated from my consistent criteria (of what the Committee states it is doing) and see if there's any consistent pattern to the teams that the Committee is overseeding and underseeding.

First, comparing how well my projected brackets performed year over year really highlights that seeding was the bigger question mark relative to last year:

Number of Teams Picked Correctly: 2006 - 59, 2007 - 62
Exact Seed Picked Correctly: 2006 - 23, 2007 - 18
Seed Picked Within One: 2006 - 40, 2007 - 41

A higher number of teams correct this year, but far less with the exact seed picked correctly. So let's dive in and see if we can determine if there's a method to this madness.

THE OVERSEEDS

VIRGINIA

SEED	TEAM	W-L	RPI	SOS	NC RPI	NC SOS	Last10	1-25	26-50	51-100
4	RPI	19-10	55	50	143	176	6-4	4-1	2-3	5-3
8	Colton	19-10	36	28	98	185	-0.41	4-1	4-4	4-3

TEAM	TOT	CONF	NC	L10	R/N	QW	QL
Colton Splits	36	21	98	50	78	26	56

First, let me give you a lay of the land. The top line of the first table shows some of the key RPI-based attributes that the Committee tends to look at. The bottom line shows the same attributes instead using the Colton Index numbers. Any deviation by the RPI from the Colton Index is purely artificial and driven by the flawed nuances of the RPI formulas. So the first thing to ask yourself is: 'Is it likely that the Committee would have looked at this team differently if it had the numbers on the bottom instead of the numbers on the top?' If so, then the RPI likely played a role in the decision making.

For performance over the last 10 games, I look at it a different way. Instead of looking at the absolute number of wins and losses, it helps to look at how that record compares to expectations based on the strength of the opponent and the location of the game. A team may get dinged for finishing 5-5 but the truth is that 5-5 record might be consistent with the team's overall ranking. Conversely, a 8-2 record over the last 10 games might look good on paper, but what if those two losses were to very weak opponents? So you'll see a +/- in my 'Last 10' column that represents the performance versus expectations over the last 10 games for a team with that ranking. In the Virginia example, their 6-4 record was 0.41 less wins than expected for a typical 36th-ranked team.

In addition to the Colton-based attributes, this year I'm also showing some key splits by the Colton Index, representation the teams relative ranking by conference vs. non-conference games (special thanks to avid reader Todd Lucas for helping me clarify my thinking around this issue), performance over the last 10 games (this time in terms of overall ranking instead of +/-), performance in road and neutral games, and the team's ranking in quality wins (summing up all of the team's wins relative to the expectations used for the SOS measure) and quality losses (same thing as QW, for losses instead). So you can see that Virginia performed like the 36th best team over the course of the season, but that can be split between performing better than 36th for the first 19 games of the season and 50th for the last 10 games, or 21st and 98th between conference/non-conference, etc.

So, getting back to Virginia, is there any indication in the numbers that would lead you to believe they should be a 4 seed? Their RPI-based numbers are actually deflated across the board. The only things that sticks out is their Conference Split of 21 and their Quality Wins ranks of 26, however both are below what you'd equate with a 4 seed.

Verdict: Conference Performance. They did tie for the regular season ACC title (is there a regular season ACC title?)

BUTLER

SEED	TEAM	W-L	RPI	SOS	NC RPI	NC SOS	Last10	1-25	26-50	51-100
5	RPI	25-6	27	108	15	27	6-4	1-1	3-0	3-2
11	Colton	25-6	34	142	24	73	-1.94	2-1	2-0	3-2

TEAM	TOT	CONF	NC	L10	R/N	QW	QL
Colton Splits	34	72	24	98	36	41	33

I was way off on Butler. I didn't really expect them to fall to 11, but I didn't expect them to be a 5 either. Butler didn't get dinged at all for their lackluster performance over the last 10 (6-4, but nearly 2 games below expected, an on par with the 98th best team over that stretch). Their non-conference performance was very good, and looks even better under the RPI. That was probably what carried the day for them.

Verdict: Non-Conference RPI and SOS. Also, 6-4 record doesn't look so bad on paper

VIRGINIA TECH

SEED	TEAM	W-L	RPI	SOS	NC RPI	NC SOS	Last10	1-25	26-50	51-100
5	RPI	20-11	34	23	53	76	5-5	4-1	2-2	4-6
7	Colton	20-11	40	24	80	190	-0.39	4-1	3-4	5-4

TEAM	TOT	CONF	NC	L10	R/N	QW	QL
Colton Splits	40	24	80	52	51	15	75

Virginia Tech is another team that didn't get hurt by a less than stellar finish to the season. Their 5-5 record was consistent with the 52nd best team. They do rank well in Quality Wins and Conference Split. Maybe the Committee felt they had to have both Virginia and Virginia Tech ahead of Duke. NC RPI numbers are inflated, especially NC SOS.

Verdict: Non-Conference RPI and SOS, Quality Wins and ignoring 5-5 Finish

NOTRE DAME

SEED	TEAM	W-L	RPI	SOS	NC RPI	NC SOS	Last10	1-25	26-50	51-100
6	RPI	24-7	31	106	68	309	7-3	3-3	4-1	3-1
8	Colton	24-7	23	89	10	276	-0.17	1-2	4-2	5-1

TEAM	TOT	CONF	NC	L10	R/N	QW	QL
Colton Splits	23	34	10	35	50	43	19

Notre Dame's RPI numbers make them look worse than the Colton Index numbers, but I still have them as an overseed. Quality wins is probably the biggest culprit...the RPI gives them 3 top 25 wins and 7 top 50 wins, the Colton Index gives them 1 top 25 win and 5 top 50 wins.

Verdict: RPI Quality Wins. Not a huge gap here...maybe a 7 seed is more appropriate.

LOUISVILLE

SEED	TEAM	W-L	RPI	SOS	NC RPI	NC SOS	Last10	1-25	26-50	51-100
6	RPI	22-9	37	36	134	144	7-3	2-6	1-1	4-2
9	Colton	22-9	42	73	104	279	+1.60	1-5	1-2	6-2

TEAM	TOT	CONF	NC	L10	R/N	QW	QL
Colton Splits	42	17	104	15	20	40	41

Louisville's RPI SOS number is vastly different than its Colton Index cousin. This is probably driven by the fact that Louisville didn't play a non-conference road game, which is not captured in the RPI SOS measure (amazing huh?). Louisville performed very well down the stretch as well...it's 7-3 record doesn't do it justice.

Verdict: RPI SOS and Performance over the Last 10

VANDERBILT

SEED	TEAM	W-L	RPI	SOS	NC RPI	NC SOS	Last10	1-25	26-50	51-100
6	RPI	19-11	45	22	101	130	5-5	4-3	1-2	5-3
10	Colton	19-11	43	21	92	222	+0.11	4-3	3-3	4-4

TEAM	TOT	CONF	NC	L10	R/N	QW	QL
Colton Splits	43	25	92	45	53	29	62

Florida seemed to be revered by the Committee. Ohio State had a much better profile than Florida other than their head-to-head meeting four months ago, but the Committee rewarded the Gators with the #1 overall seed. Vanderbilt probably got some residual benefit from beating Florida recently. Even with this win, however, Vandy's doesn't seem to fit the profile of a 6 seed: 43rd body-of-work, 29th quality wins, 45th over the last 10.

Verdict: They beat Florida, therefore they must be good.

INDIANA

SEED	TEAM	W-L	RPI	SOS	NC RPI	NC SOS	Last10	1-25	26-50	51-100
7	RPI	20-10	28	51	40	148	5-5	3-4	2-4	2-2
11	Colton	20-10	28	27	34	86	-0.99	3-4	3-5	2-1

TEAM	TOT	CONF	NC	L10	R/N	QW	QL
Colton Splits	28	36	34	64	76	55	20

PURDUE

SEED	TEAM	W-L	RPI	SOS	NC RPI	NC SOS	Last10	1-25	26-50	51-100
9	RPI	21-11	42	44	37	87	7-3	1-4	2-2	6-3
11	Colton	21-11	46	46	42	147	+0.88	1-4	4-4	5-1

TEAM	TOT	CONF	NC	L10	R/N	QW	QL
Colton Splits	46	47	42	24	73	59	31

I'm a Big Ten guy, but I can't quite get a handle on the way the Big Ten seeds broke down. Indiana 7, Michigan St 9, Purdue 9, Illinois 12. Michigan State is probably fine at 9, but the others should've been more evenly bunched in the 10/11 range. Indiana played poorly down the stretch, but it didn't seem to hurt their seed.

Verdict: Hard to figure this one out.

XAVIER

SEED	TEAM	W-L	RPI	SOS	NC RPI	NC SOS	Last10	1-25	26-50	51-100
9	RPI	24-8	32	83	47	44	9-1	1-1	2-1	9-3
OUT	Colton	24-8	60	138	59	130	+1.19	0-0	3-2	7-2

TEAM	TOT	CONF	NC	L10	R/N	QW	QL
Colton Splits	60	58	59	20	67	47	69

I was one of the few that had Xavier out of the tournament. They were clearly helped by some inflated RPI numbers (32 vs 60...a huge difference for a bubble team. 83 vs 138 SOS) and some bad losses (Cincy, Duquesne, Rhode Island) didn't seem to hurt them much. I'm not surprised that they made the tournament, but I'm still not sure why they were considered a lock.

Verdict: The RPI Numbers

GONZAGA

SEED	TEAM	W-L	RPI	SOS	NC RPI	NC SOS	Last10	1-25	26-50	51-100
10	RPI	23-10	60	93	48	9	7-3	1-4	1-1	4-3
12	Colton	23-10	54	83	45	13	-0.90	2-4	1-3	3-1

TEAM	TOT	CONF	NC	L10	R/N	QW	QL
Colton Splits	54	68	45	86	40	46	58

Gonzaga as a 10 seed shows that they probably would've made it as an at-large had they not won their conference tournament. I'm not so sure that they deserved it. Gonzaga seemed to get a lot of credit for simply playing a tough non-conference schedule, although their NC performance wasn't much better than their overall performance (54 vs 45). Unlike other years where I felt Gonzaga wasn't getting the credit they deserved, this is one year where their profile doesn't fit the seed.

Verdict: Played a tough non-conference schedule.

TEXAS TECH

SEED	TEAM	W-L	RPI	SOS	NC RPI	NC SOS	Last10	1-25	26-50	51-100
10	RPI	21-12	53	39	46	62	6-4	3-2	2-4	2-3
OUT	Colton	21-12	57	61	56	145	+0.03	3-3	2-4	3-4

TEAM	TOT	CONF	NC	L10	R/N	QW	QL
Colton Splits	57	54	56	59	54	33	82

Texas Tech was the second of three teams that I didn't have in the tournament. Tech had some very good wins (Kansas, Texas A&M twice) that probably helped their cause tremendously, enough to overshadow losses to Baylor, Oklahoma and Nebraska. RPI SOS numbers are a little inflated. Overall, I can't really raise a stink that they got in. They were certainly more deserving than Drexel or Syracuse.

Verdict: Quality wins. Quality wins. Quality Wins.

OLD DOMINION

SEED	TEAM	W-L	RPI	SOS	NC RPI	NC SOS	Last10	1-25	26-50	51-100
12	RPI	24-8	40	96	52	35	9-1	1-0	3-2	2-3
OUT	Colton	24-8	63	136	64	78	+1.65	1-1	0-2	4-2

TEAM	TOT	CONF	NC	L10	R/N	QW	QL
Colton Splits	63	56	64	10	57	60	55

Well, I'm just glad it wasn't Drexel. ODU got some serious help from some inflated RPI numbers. RPI: 40 vs 63. SOS: 96 vs 136. NC SOS: 35 vs 78. Those are the kind of gaps you want if you are one of the last teams in the field. Plus ODU got credit for 4 top 50 wins when I only have them with one (2 thanks to Drexel). Performance over the last 10 is strong, but the rest of their splits are mediocre.

Verdict: Inflated RPI numbers. Favorable conference and head-to-head to Drexel.

THE UNDERSEEDS

SOUTHERN ILLINOIS

SEED	TEAM	W-L	RPI	SOS	NC RPI	NC SOS	Last10	1-25	26-50	51-100
4	RPI	26-6	7	31	12	42	9-1	2-1	6-3	5-1
2	Colton	26-6	11	48	22	48	+1.31	0-0	6-3	9-2

TEAM	TOT	CONF	NC	L10	R/N	QW	QL
Colton Splits	11	12	22	5	16	8	17

CREIGHTON

SEED	TEAM	W-L	RPI	SOS	NC RPI	NC SOS	Last10	1-25	26-50	51-100
10	RPI	22-10	20	19	72	24	7-3	1-2	6-1	4-4
6	Colton	22-10	35	55	99	117	+0.55	1-2	3-0	8-6

TEAM	TOT	CONF	NC	L10	R/N	QW	QL
Colton Splits	35	15	99	30	37	16	66

MISSOURI ST

SEED	TEAM	W-L	RPI	SOS	NC RPI	NC SOS	Last10	1-25	26-50	51-100
	RPI	21-10	36	42	41	57	7-3	1-5	2-1	6-3
8	Colton	21-10	39	54	48	96	+0.86	1-3	0-3	9-3

TEAM	TOT	CONF	NC	L10	R/N	QW	QL
Colton Splits	39	35	48	26	24	23	59

The Missouri Valley got no love from the Committee this year. Seeds were down across the board, and Missouri St got hosed for the second year in a row. For all of the stink about Syracuse not getting a seed, Missouri St has a much bigger beef. What more do you want from Missouri St? Overall performance? 39th. Quality wins? 23rd. Performance over last 10? 26th. Road/Neutral performance? 24th. And their RPI numbers are even better than their Colton Index numbers.

It's the same deal with Southern Illinois. Their numbers are very strong across the board, at least enough to warrant a 3 seed. Creighton also has some very good numbers.

So what's up? I think this is an example where the Committee simply didn't believe the numbers. The RPI numbers for the MVC are inflated across the board. The MVC did get a lot of negative press (whether justified or not) for cooking the numbers last year. That could have had a role in Committee members being skeptical again here, only they over corrected. Maybe it's backlash for trying to game the system. Or maybe they simply don't believe that the MVC teams are really that good despite what the numbers say.

And although the Committee states that conference affiliation doesn't matter (and for the most part I believe them), conference affiliation DEFINITELY played a role last year...when the Committee was dead set against having five MVC teams. If you don't believe me, check out Craig Littlepage's comments here (under 'Missouri St and Conference Affiliation'). Missouri St lost out in that comparison last year, and they lose out again here. Sorry Bears fans.

Verdict: No love for the MVC. No faith in the MVC RPI numbers.

ARIZONA

SEED	TEAM	W-L	RPI	SOS	NC RPI	NC SOS	Last10	1-25	26-50	51-100
8	RPI	20-10	14	2	2	1	6-4	3-7	2-2	9-1
4	Colton	20-10	16	1	12	15	-0.35	3-9	4-1	6-0

TEAM	TOT	CONF	NC	L10	R/N	QW	QL
Colton Splits	16	28	12	25	7	12	23

Another team notorious for scheduling to make itself look as pretty as possible. Maybe the Committee read my blog post from last year. Arizona didn't get any benefit from their lofty numbers this year. It's surprising too, because their 'true' numbers are still very strong. 12th in Quality Wins. 7th in Road/Neutral games (although I was at the Illinois/Arizona game in Phoenix, that was hardly neutral. At a very minimum, Arizona got some homer-ish calls). 12th in non-conference performance. None of these things scream 8 seed at me. But since they got in the tournament last year when they shouldn't have, I can't really feel sorry for them.

Verdict: What goes around comes around.

UNLV

SEED	TEAM	W-L	RPI	SOS	NC RPI	NC SOS	Last10	1-25	26-50	51-100
7	RPI	27-6	10	38	13	38	9-1	3-2	1-1	6-1
4	Colton	27-6	17	90	14	98	+0.34	1-1	3-2	8-1

TEAM	TOT	CONF	NC	L10	R/N	QW	QL
Colton Splits	17	26	14	12	21	21	18

UNLV had some inflated RPI numbers, it didn't do much for them on Selection Sunday. Even with my lower numbers, UNLV fit the profile of a 4-5 seed. It's Conference Split is the lowest one on the list, and that's still 26th overall.

Verdict: Not a strong schedule, but still a pretty solid resume. What more do you want?

KENTUCKY

SEED	TEAM	W-L	RPI	SOS	NC RPI	NC SOS	Last10	1-25	26-50	51-100
8	RPI	21-11	13	1	6	2	4-6	1-6	4-3	9-2
5	Colton	21-11	20	2	16	29	-1.67	1-6	5-4	9-1

TEAM	TOT	CONF	NC	L10	R/N	QW	QL
Colton Splits	20	31	16	67	29	18	25

VILLANOVA

SEED	TEAM	W-L	RPI	SOS	NC RPI	NC SOS	Last10	1-25	26-50	51-100
9	RPI	21-10	19	7	22	46	7-3	1-4	4-4	5-2
7	Colton	21-10	31	36	35	181	+0.19	3-4	1-1	6-5

TEAM	TOT	CONF	NC	L10	R/N	QW	QL
Colton Splits	31	40	35	37	22	27	46

An interesting match-up of two Wildcats (awww..how cute!) that were both underseeded...a 8-9 matchup that could've easily been a 5-7 match-up. Kentucky played one of the most difficult schedules in the country, performed reasonably well, yet wasn't rewarded for it. A lackluster finish (4-6, 67th best performance over the last 10) and 1-6 against the RPI Top 25 probably hurt its chances. As for Villanova, I expected them to be seeded much higher than the 7th seed I had them since their RPI numbers were much higher across the board (46 vs 181 NC SOS! It's amazing that the RPI is even measuring the same thing.) Villanova's numbers look like a pretty solid 7-8 seed.

Verdict: Last 10 for Kentucky. Not sure about Vilanova.

GEORGIA TECH

SEED	TEAM	W-L	RPI	SOS	NC RPI	NC SOS	Last10	1-25	26-50	51-100
10	RPI	20-11	52	41	38	157	7-3	3-4	4-2	3-2
7	Colton	20-11	29	13	15	124	+1.04	3-4	6-4	3-2

TEAM	TOT	CONF	NC	L10	R/N	QW	QL
Colton Splits	29	48	15	21	64	30	37

Georgia Tech had deflated RPI numbers across the board. RPI: 52 vs 29. SOS: 41 vs 13. NC RPI: 38 vs 15. 7 Top 50 wins vs 9 top 50 wins. The Colton Index numbers paint a better picture for Georgia Tech.

Verdict: Deflated RPI numbers.

WINTHROP

SEED	TEAM	W-L	RPI	SOS	NC RPI	NC SOS	Last10	1-25	26-50	51-100
11	RPI	24-4	70	270	31	45	10-0	0-4	2-0	1-0
6	Colton	24-4	10	150	20	3	+0.49	0-4	1-0	2-0

TEAM	TOT	CONF	NC	L10	R/N	QW	QL
Colton Splits	10	9	20	6	12	90	2

I've said everything there is to say about Winthrop here. By giving them a 11 seed, the Committee is treating Winthrop like a 22-6 team instead of a 24-4 team. Winthrop's 70 RPI and 270 SOS probably didn't help their cause either.

Verdict: Deflated RPI numbers. Lack of quality wins (90th overall).

ARKANSAS

SEED	TEAM	W-L	RPI	SOS	NC RPI	NC SOS	Last10	1-25	26-50	51-100
12	RPI	21-13	35	9	23	32	6-4	1-4	4-1	6-6
9	Colton	21-13	47	16	36	112	+0.87	1-5	4-1	7-7

TEAM	TOT	CONF	NC	L10	R/N	QW	QL
Colton Splits	47	51	36	32	38	22	73

Arkansas played its way into the tournament in the conference tourney, bolstering its quality wins (22nd) and performance over the last 10 (32nd). Most focused on Arkansas' sub-500 conference record. A tough one to seed with quality wins and some bad losses (73rd QL)

Verdict: Performance down the stretch got em in. Conference performance and bad losses held them back.

FLORIDA ST

SEED	TEAM	W-L	RPI	SOS	NC RPI	NC SOS	Last10	1-25	26-50	51-100
	RPI	20-12	41	21	26	111	4-6	3-5	1-2	3-5
10	Colton	20-12	33	11	13	151	-0.62	3-5	2-7	3-0

TEAM	TOT	CONF	NC	L10	R/N	QW	QL
Colton Splits	33	52	13	55	34	45	30

Florida St just gets no love. Last year they played a weak non-conference schedule and had some deflated RPI numbers. This year their numbers were deflated as well (33 vs 41 RPI, 11 vs 21 SOS) despite a better schedule this time around. Florida St had a weak 4-6 finish to their season, but this wasn't much lower than expected (55th overall). All 12 of its losses were inside the top 50 of the Colton Index (much different than 3-5 in the RPI 51-100 range). Florida St is the perennial bubble team.

Verdict: Deflated RPI numbers. 4-6 finish looks worse than it really is.

CLEMSON

SEED	TEAM	W-L	RPI	SOS	NC RPI	NC SOS	Last10	1-25	26-50	51-100
	RPI	20-10	51	52	30	233	3-7	0-5	5-2	4-2
10	Colton	20-10	27	23	27	282	-2.65	0-5	5-4	5-1

TEAM	TOT	CONF	NC	L10	R/N	QW	QL
Colton Splits	16	28	12	25	7	12	23

I didn't really expect Clemson get in given their 17-0 start and 3-10 finish. If it was the other way around, they would've made the tournament. If it's truly body of work...Clemson gets in: 27th overall. 32nd in quality wins. 27 vs 51 RPI probably didn't help much either.

Verdict: Could say deflated numbers, but in all honesty 3-10 finish just ain't gonna cut it.

Overall, it's hard to really detect a pattern in the Committee's thinking. In some cases, performance over the last 10 killed teams like Clemson, Florida St and Kentucky but didn't do any harm to Indiana, Butler, Vanderbilt or Virginia Tech. RPI likely played a role for Xavier, Georgia Tech, Winthrop, Old Dominion, but didn't in the MVC teams, Arizona, Arkansas or UNLV.

It seemed like Walters & Co. depended more on taking and compiling votes of the 10 members more than I remember, so it was more of a democratic process. However, it's impossible to know what criteria each and every Committee member was using to rank order the teams -- were they looking at body or work, voting for the most deserving teams, or simply ranking what they thought were the best teams? Hard to tell exactly from just looking at these examples.

One other interesting tidbit that came out of the post-bracket teleconference. Somebody asked Walters about a new ranking, called LRNC, that was being used for the first time. This was completely out of left field. Nobody I know has even heard of this LRNC rating. I'm surprised more wasn't made out of it. I can only imagine what the basis of it is. When I hear anything, I'll let you know. Stay tuned.

"Q. How much, if at all, did your committee use the LRNC rankings provided to you this year for the first time?

GARY WALTERS: We had access to all of the quantitative data that is out there, and it's certainly one tool that people could look at. But, you know, the main quantitative model that we use is obviously the RPI. We have enormous respect for what Jeff Sagarin has done over the years, as well. We can also reference that. But our primary quantitative tool is the RPI. That provides the basic framework from which we operate.

Q. Did you look at this at all?

GARY WALTERS: Yeah, I had a chance to look at it. I mean, anybody who's a basketball aficionado would look at it. But I don't know what the thrust of that question is. Is this an advertisement?

Q. I'm just asking about it because it's new.

GARY WALTERS: No, I mean, we looked at it. Again, I think I answered the question."